Attempt to design a research question around given topics…
I chose Feminism, CAM and Friends of Science in Medicine. My question is below
Feminism and Social Determinants of Health in a Globalised Society: Exploring the Influences of the Friends of Science group in Medical Research and Independent Complementary Medicine Researchers and Groups in Australia.
Heather Beamish
Note- this wasn’t a great assignment on my part. My feedback was to include more in-text citations and sources, in addition to the reference list (which has been provided) expand on my ideas further, and to learn APA7 referencing properly, within the word count of 1500 words. I think it’s a good thing to learn something new, improve in knowledge a bit, and build on that, so a worthwhile exercise. It’s reposted here for those interested in the topic and study path in general…
Feminism looks broadly at different Sociological Theories and attempts to understand society from differing perspectives on the spectrum of Structure and Agency. It looks at how Society influences and controls people’s lives or alternately how people are empowered to make choices within the structures of Society. Feminism in Healthcare seeks to look at the position of women in Society from factors such as gender inequality in healthcare, research, theory, treatment, biological similarities, innate occurrences of sexism in medical research, bias in medical research, reporting attitudes and media reception globally (Germov, 2013).
Feminism embraces Intersectional views in its philosophies through acknowledging that Social Determinants of Health such as those above and others such as income, housing, nutrition, healthcare, community support all contribute to Healthcare being both an independent choice, and an interdependent decision in life, based on circumstances in society and in the community, that shape a person’s life.
The focus group of this research, the ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’ group (Fsm), advocates that there isn’t such a thing as Complementary Alternative Medicine (CAM) in Healthcare, and that all valid Medical approaches are those backed by reliable Hierarchies of Evidence in Scientific Research (FSM, 2021). Researchers of CAM report that there is valid evidence to support many CAM approaches to medicine, and that in utilising CAM people are given choice relating back to social determinants of health and strategies that work, and that need more research to be backed more publicly, and catered for in healthcare.
There is growing evidence that CAM practices help communities and public health funding by treating problems ‘upstream’ or at the source, before they worsen thus creating lifting burdens to the public health care system, one just needs to look at published studies to see that more research in these area could increase the validity of findings, however funding and research allocation and time are often barriers. The main criticism of the Friends of Science in Medicine Group from CAM groups is that it labels CAM very negatively, therefore creating negative public perception. It uses terms such as ‘Quackery’, and ‘Pseudoscience’ as a label for all CAM Practices.
A medical research practitioner Monique Lewis PhD, researched the tone and framing of 76 CAM related articles related to the debate as to whether CAM should be taught in universities (Lewis, 2018). As part of her research, 76 articles relating to this topic were reviewed for tone and framing – both negative and positive, with inferences around how these articles portrayed CAM to academic researchers, the public, and the media. In this small study she reported that of 76 articles, 41, were by the Friends of Science in Medicine, 20, were by professional CAM bodies, 18, were Biomedical Scientists, and a few were unspecified articles by University Management in justification of teaching CAM courses at University. She found that the weighting of research articles showed 68% had negative tone, 23% had neutral tone, and 9% had positive tone towards CAM. Furthermore, this translated to 42 negative articles, 21 mixed, 8 were neutral, and 3 were positive. If a tone is overall negative and framing uses negative wording it changes the publics perceptions and places CAM at a disadvantage when it comes to prioritising and allocating funding for studies to take place.
Further discussions around the results were that CAM is targeted and compared to the Biomedical Model without adequate integration of outside determinants affecting the findings. Additionally, CAM was conveyed negatively, in the same way that Biomedicine could be conveyed as problematic due to the high price of pharmaceutical medicines for example, or the long waiting lists for specialists and surgeries; however, the outright focus on CAM as Illegitimate, Quackery, or Pseudoscience is damaging to the societal perception of CAM and fails to consider the testimonies of those who use CAM with good results.
Lewis discussed that rather than the findings being framed negatively or positively, that all medical research is available for people to learn from and make informed decisions based on the research and in partnership with qualified practitioners (2020, Lewis, M). Additionally it is unlikely that a ‘smear campaign’ on the practice of well supported and evidence based CAM practices will ‘fix’ the mainstream health care system or change policies so that one side ‘wins’ over the other in how medicine is practiced in Healthcare.
Medical research informs policies and decision making in Community Health. Where activist groups like FSM advocate strongly against CAM, It can be considered that their stance is aimed at affecting decision makers at a government level. The danger is that research and interpretation becomes skewed by bias, which interestingly enough is the same criticism of CAM. Both parties really need to integrate various forms of evidence and research not just that which can be overwhelmingly replicated and reproduced using an academic and scientific model of research. There are just to many variables in life, and not enough research backing to accept a limited range of research methods.
One major criticism of CAM by parties supporting FSM, is that the Media picks up a story and is sensationalist about a ‘quick fix miracle cure’ (FSM, 2021), however when FSM makes strong claims that all CAM is ‘pseudoscience’ the media just as easily picks this up and conveys this to public perception (Lewis, M). There are also concerns about authors painting dark perceptions of CAM practitioners as ‘snake oil salesmen’, and criminals, as in chapter 2 of the text ‘Medical Misinformation and Social Harm in Non-Science Based Health Practices’; the reader is introduced to CAM as stated: ‘Confessions of a Quack, MD Bradman (2008), who describes the adventures of Holistic Harry, an MD practising alternative medicine ‘on faith’ who comes to realise the non-scientific value of his alternative medicine beliefs (because the treatments he proposes are based on tradition, anecdote, and authority, but they do not pass double-blind studies).
In contrast, this view may limit a persons autonomy and right to be an active participant in their own health. The above statement fails to look at ‘why’ people use CAM, and ‘how’ it actually affects their lives, sense of wellbeing, and overall health positively or negatively often times leading to learning, personal growth, and improved wellbeing. Furthermore, it fails to consider there are many different social determinants and intersectional factors to healthcare. The very negative tone ‘Confessions of a Quack’ also conditions the reader to think in a certain way and therefore closes down any invitation to think differently, or hopefully it may inadvertently promote thought, debate, and reflection that assists us to rethink the issue of polarisation, and look at how practices and policies can change?
Now from a Feminist perspective – can CAM and Biomedicine integrate holistically? Ning, A: In her article ‘How ‘alternative’ is CAM? Rethinking conventional dichotomies between biomedicine and complementary/alternative medicine’ Ning discusses, ‘the dichotomisation of ‘conventional’ and ‘alternative’ therapies in popular, academic and medical literature’ (Ning, 2012). Her perspective is that the concepts of ‘holism, vitalism, spirituality, natural healing and individual responsibility for health care’ are not Ailey CAM concepts. These are actually part of societal and cultural values that exist beyond the labelled divisions of ‘Biomedicine’ and ‘CAM’ in Health and Wellbeing. Ning’s views support the concept that it is possible to have structure and agency, and choice in life, and in medicine and public health care and she invites the reader to think about their own position in how the social determinants of health in society affect their own lives.
From a feminist perspective the question is ‘where do I stand in this matter’? How am I affected. So to look further, we can look at another article on the UN Women’s Website, titled, ‘Intersectional feminism: what it means and why it matters right now’, Civil Rights activist, Kimberlé Crenshaw, is quoted as saying: ‘If you see inequality as a “them” problem, or as an “unfortunate other” problem, that is a problem (UN Women, 2020).
This statement could apply to the discussion of disagreements between groups such as FSM and CAM researchers. A more integrative solution could possibly be achieved; however, it is not an easy situation to address!
The Friends of Science in Medicine defines Complementary Medicine as Pseudoscience and Quackery, whereas FSM research is limited to using the Hierarchy of Evidence in Scientific Research Methods and a heavy reliance on the NVIVO meta-analysis data bases for reviews of existing research, rather than creation of new primary research studies (Dwyer, 2021).
Complementary Medicine researchers from groups such as FXMedicine group, and independent researcher Monique Lewis PhD, are advocates for an Integrative understanding of medicine in the context of CAM and look at how various research modes and social determinants of health must be considered. It is possible that the FSM group may be bias in their outlook, reflection, and approach to activism for medicine in Australia, and globally (2020) Lewis, M.
Teacher: Heather, you selected a really interesting topic and theory for your paper. More analysis of your topic using your theory as the framework or perspective would have been useful. Your referencing skills need some development – I recommend that you make a time to meet with one of the librarians to get some support with this. You sourced some interesting reference material. Overall, a good job. Please check your pdf for additional feedback.
References
Blaschke, A. M., & Salles , A. (2022, January 21). Patients get better care from doctors who are women. But sexism persists in medicine.
Brosnon, C. (2015, January 22). ‘Quackery’ in the Academy? Professional Knowledge, Autonomy and the Debate over Complementary Medicine Degrees. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514557912
Dwyer, J. (2021, December 4). The Dawning of Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM). Retrieved from https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-dawning-of-friends-of-science-in-medicine-fsm/
FXMedicine. (n.d.). Is CAM a Victim of Media Bias? With Dr Monique Lewis. Australia.
Germov, J. (2013). Second opinion: An Introduction to Health Sociology. Oxford University Press.
Kerridge, I., Lowe, M., & Stewart, C. (2020). Ethics and Law for Health Professionals. NSW: The Federation Press.
Lavorgna, a., & Ronco, A. D. (2019). Medical Misinformation and Social Harm in Non-Science Based Health Practices. Routledge.
Lewis, M. (2018, November 9).
De-Legitimising Complementary Medicine: Framings of the Friends of Science in Medicine-CAM Debate in Australian Media Reports. doi:10.1111/1467- 9566.12865
Ning, A. M. (2012, June 12). How ‘alternative’ is CAM? Rethinking conventional dichotomies between biomedicine and complementary/alternative medicine. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459312447252
Nixon, S. A. (2019). The Coin Model of Privilege and Critical Allyship: implications for health. BMC Public Health, 19.
Shahvisi, A. (2019). Medicine is Patriarchal, But Alternative Medicine is Not the Answer. (16). Journal of Bioethical Enquiry.
UN Women. (2020, July 1). Intersectional feminism: what it means and why it matters right now.