Skip to main content

The Power of Biomedicine

Until reading both Good (1995) and Hahn and Kleinman (1983), I hadn’t fully recognized the extensive power afforded to biomedicine by Western society. This power is pervasive and appears to encompass all aspects of our modern medical system, from healthcare delivery to medical research and technology, from the provision of health information to the public to medical training institutions. I found myself continually drawing examples from my own research and personal experience that matched the hegemonic influences of the biomedical system presented by these authors.

For instance, Good spends a considerable amount of her piece discussing the biomedical model’s focus on cutting-edge technology as a medium of conveying hope. She notes, “American willingness to invest both public funds and private monies in experimental chemotherapies and clinical trials illustrates high commitment to biotechnology and the biotechnical fix” (p. 465). It is true that, in today’s society, competent oncological practice often entails knowledge and skillful use of new technologies. Finding a doctor with the newest and brightest treatment tool was the first task for my friend when diagnosed with cancer, and no amount of money or number of miles traveled could compete with that doctor’s willingness to help “cure” my friend. Now that the cancer has metastasized, leaving my friend in even more medical debt, we’re all wondering if the experimental treatment was worth the cost.

Good also discusses the role of ambiguity in biomedical research. She suggests that, “Bioscience narratives often introduce ‘facts,’ ambiguities and uncertainties that are selectively employed by clinics depending on the clinical culture in which they work” (p. 465). Even as statistics are used to convey certainty, they equally convey ambiguity when treatments and chances are placed in the language of odds and ratios. Harkening to the research of Jensen and colleagues on the role of hedging in scientific findings, the presentation of results as uncertain (which considering the role of probability in social scientific research, all results are) leads to a general lack of confidence in resultant findings. As such, the mass media is often left representing scientific conjecture as scientific truth in order to appeal to the desired sense of novelty required by the news-hungry public. This can have damaging effects on what the public comes to believe about any given health treatment or technology. In analyzing the presentation of information about genetic testing on a number of breast cancer websites, it was astonishing to see how much variation there was in the presentation of statistics regarding the efficacy of testing in detecting genetic markers. Outside of statistical presentation, the inclusion and omission of such material, often controlled by the amount of commercial interest held by the organization sponsoring the site, was equally surprising. Based on these findings, I’m left to question who would be accountable if a woman read her over-the-counter genetic breast cancer test as positive and concurrently acted as though this result (and her fate) was 100% certain?

Good also argues that “local medical cultures as well as political economies influence the way in which clinical science and technologies are institutionalized in medical practice” (p. 462). For example, as researchers investigated why breast conservation surgery wasn’t highly adopted in particular communities, they found that those who resided outside urban areas (thus outside of influential spheres and markets of academic teaching and research hospitals) were less likely to have the surgery. Such an example was particularly telling for me, considering my interests in rural health disparities. I particularly loved her quote: “The products of biotechnology are often promoted even with the most basic elements of infrastructure for competent medical practice lacking.” So true!

Popular posts from this blog

Zionist hate mongering, the race/terror trope, and the Free Speech Union: Part 1

March 15, 2019. It was a day of terror. Unleashed by a white supremacist far-right terrorist. Driven by hate for brown people. Driven by Islamophobic hate. Earlier in the day, I had come across a hate-based hit piece targeting me, alongside other academics, the University of Auckland academic Professor Nicholas Rowe , Professor Richard Jackson at Otago University, Professor Kevin P Clements at Otago University, Dr. Rose Martin from University of Auckland and Dr. Nigel Parsons at Massey University.  Titled, "More extremists in New Zealand Universities," the article threw in the labels "terror sympathisers" and "extremist views." Written by one David Cumin and hosted on the website of the Israel Institute of New Zealand, the article sought to create outrage that academics critical of Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid are actually employed by universities in New Zealand. Figure 1: The web post written by David Cumin on the site of Israel Institute

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems wit

Tova O’Brien and pedagogy of whiteness

So Tova O’Brien was looking for a click-bait opportunity to draw in listeners to her podcast and she found the migrant activist and Green Party politician Dr. Sapna Samant to pick on. In a gotcha moment, Tova shared with the Green Party co-leader James Shaw a series of posts made by Dr. Samant on whiteness, Hindutva, and multiculturalism, asking him if the tweets were OK. We don’t understand from listening to O’Brien’s podcast if her research team actively researched Dr. Sapna Samant’s social media posts, or whether these selective screen captures of Dr. Samant’s tweets were sent to her by someone wanting to target Samant. The thoroughly unresearched piece is poor journalism, reflective of the mediocrity that is perpetuated by whiteness , the hegemonic values of the dominant white culture in settler colonies. If indeed her research team had discovered the tweets, it’s worth interrogating why the social media posts of a migrant woman activist on whiteness are of interest to O’Brien’s po