Analysis Of Parsons’ Sick Role Model Applied To Diabetes

Analysis of Parsons’ Sick Role Model Applied to Diabetes

Parsons’ Sick Role model offers a foundational sociological framework that elucidates societal expectations and individual behaviors associated with illness. Developed by Talcott Parsons in 1951, this model posits that being sick is a temporary role that carries specific rights and obligations. The model emphasizes the societal acceptance of the ill individual’s temporary exemption from normative responsibilities and the expectation that the individual will seek treatment and aim for recovery. Understanding how this model applies to chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, provides a nuanced view of patient experiences and societal interactions.

Diabetes, a chronic metabolic disorder characterized by high blood glucose levels, is an apt subject for applying Parsons’ Sick Role model due to its long-term management requirements and the societal perceptions surrounding the illness. Unlike acute conditions that are transient, diabetes entails ongoing health management, lifestyle modifications, and continuous medical oversight. The societal recognition of diabetes as a legitimate health concern also influences expectations placed on individuals living with the condition, making it a rich context for analyzing the application of Parsons’ constructs.

Application of Parsons’ Sick Role Constructs to Diabetes

Parsons’ model delineates four key components: two rights—exemption from usual responsibilities and the right to adopt a sick role—and two obligations—the necessity to seek competent help and the obligation to work towards recovery. In the context of diabetes, these are experienced distinctly yet interconnectedly.

Firstly, the right to exemption manifests as the societal acceptance that individuals diagnosed with diabetes may temporarily or permanently be excused from certain daily responsibilities. For example, patients might miss work or social commitments during episodes of hyperglycemia or when facing complications. This exemption, however, is often tempered by societal expectations that they will manage their condition responsibly, adopting medical advice and lifestyle changes.

The second right involves the societal recognition of the legitimacy of the illness. People with diabetes are presumed to have a genuine health concern that warrants treatment and support rather than stigmatization. This acknowledgment alleviates the burden of social judgment, allowing affected individuals to seek assistance without undue shame. For instance, access to medical resources, education, and community support programs reflect this societal acknowledgment of the illness's legitimacy.

On the obligations side, individuals with diabetes are expected to actively seek medical help and adhere to prescribed treatments. This includes regular monitoring of blood glucose levels, medication adherence, and lifestyle modifications such as diet and exercise. These obligations are reinforced by healthcare providers and societal health campaigns emphasizing the importance of management for preventing complications.

Furthermore, there is an obligation to strive for recovery or at least optimal management. Patients are encouraged to maintain control over their condition to impede progression and improve quality of life. This can involve lifestyle adjustments, continuous health monitoring, and attending regular medical appointments. The societal and medical community often play a role in reinforcing this obligation through education and support systems.

Critical Reflection on the Usefulness of Parsons’ Sick Role Model for Diabetes

While Parsons’ Sick Role model offers valuable insights into societal expectations and individual behaviors concerning illness, its application to a chronic condition like diabetes reveals certain limitations. Primarily, the model was originally conceptualized to describe temporary illnesses and does not fully account for the persistent and ongoing nature of diabetes management.

One significant limitation concerns the model’s assumption that illness is a temporary deviation from normality. In diabetes, individuals often live with the condition lifelong, which blurs the typical boundaries of 'sick' and 'healthy' states. Patients may oscillate between periods of effective management and complications, challenging the expectation of eventual recovery. This ongoing management requires a departure from the traditional model where the sick role is seen as a temporary state that the individual wishes and is expected to recover from.

Additionally, the model presumes that societal and individual responsibilities are balanced, with the expectation that the individual will seek help and adhere to treatment. However, in diabetes, factors such as socioeconomic status, health literacy, and cultural beliefs significantly influence a person’s ability to fulfill these obligations. For example, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds may face barriers to accessing appropriate care, thus complicating the applicability of the model's obligations.

Furthermore, the model does not explicitly address the psychosocial dimensions of chronic illness, such as stigma, emotional distress, and identity transformation that people with diabetes often experience. The persistent management requirements can lead to feelings of frustration, guilt, or social isolation, which are not adequately addressed within the traditional sick role framework.

Despite these limitations, Parsons’ Sick Role model remains useful in highlighting societal expectations and the importance of social support for individuals with diabetes. It provides a basic understanding of the social contract between the patient and society, emphasizing the need for medical help and active engagement in health management. However, for chronic illnesses like diabetes, a more comprehensive sociological model that captures the ongoing, multifaceted experience of living with a long-term condition may be necessary.

Conclusion

In conclusion, applying Parsons’ Sick Role model to diabetes elucidates both societal expectations and personal responsibilities involved in managing a chronic illness. While valuable, the model’s limitations in capturing the enduring and complex nature of diabetes suggest that it should be complemented with other sociological theories emphasizing chronic illness management, identity, and social determinants of health. Future research and healthcare strategies should incorporate these broader perspectives to better support individuals navigating long-term health conditions.

References

• Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Free Press.
• Bury, M. (1982). Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health & Illness, 4(2), 167-182.
• Charmaz, K. (1991). Producing illnesses: Pathographies of breast cancer.社会学年会, 26, 49-72.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1988). Unending Work and Care: Managing Chronic Illness at Home. Jossey-Bass.
• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
• McGibbon, E. & MacKean, G. (2013). Chronic illness and patient responsibility: The social context of ‘self-management’. Qualitative Health Research, 23(9), 1240-1251.
• Reed, M. (2013). Stigma and chronic illness: A review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 75-83.
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
• Coreil, J. (Ed.). (2011). Social and Behavioral Foundations of Public Health. Sage Publications.
• Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Sage Publications.