Quiz 41 According To Chriss 2022 What Is Medicalization

Quiz 41 According To Chriss 2022 What Is Medicalization2 Accor

According to Chriss (2022), medicalization refers to the process through which human experiences and problems that were previously considered non-medical or purely social are redefined and treated as medical issues. This transformation often involves framing conditions or behaviors as illnesses that require medical intervention, thereby expanding the influence and authority of medical professionals over various aspects of life and society.

Medical social control, as explained by Chriss (2022), involves the use of medical authority to regulate individual behaviors and maintain social order. It encompasses practices and policies that utilize medical diagnoses and treatments to manage behaviors deemed deviant or problematic, thus serving as a means for social regulation beyond traditional legal or moral sanctions.

The four basic elements of the "sick role," according to Talcott Parsons, include: 1) exemption from normal social roles, meaning the sick individual is temporarily freed from obligations; 2) exemption from responsibility for their condition; 3) the expectation that the sick person should seek competent help and cooperate with medical professionals; and 4) the obligation to try to get well and to accept treatment, which facilitates the social process of recovery and reintegration.

Demedicalization, as outlined by Chriss (2022), refers to the process of undoing or reducing the medicalization of certain conditions or behaviors. An example of demedicalization is the declassification of certain mental health diagnoses or the removal of specific behaviors from the diagnostic manuals, such as the decline in labeling homosexuality as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Crimes characterized as mala prohibita, such as drug use and prostitution, are more susceptible to the tug-of-war between medicalization proponents and criminalization advocates because these behaviors occupy a gray area where social norms, moral judgments, and medical perspectives intersect. Some argue these behaviors are best addressed through medical treatment and social support, while others view them as criminal acts that need legal sanctions. The debate hinges on whether such behaviors should be seen as health issues needing treatment or as moral failings to be punished.

The "therapeutic ethos," according to Chriss (2022), refers to the cultural belief that health, healing, and individual well-being are central to societal values. It promotes the idea that medical interventions are the primary means of resolving personal and social problems, which can lead society to prioritize medical solutions over other approaches, potentially expanding the influence of medical authority and potentially pathologizing normal variations or behaviors.

The antipsychiatry movement of the 1950s and 1960s challenged traditional psychiatric practices, critiquing the overuse of psychiatric diagnoses and forced treatments. It questioned the medical model of mental illness, highlighting issues such as the potential for abuse, the social control functions of psychiatry, and the stigmatization of mental health patients. Prominent figures like Thomas Szasz argued that mental illness was often a social construct rather than a medical reality, advocating for greater patient rights and critiques of institutionalization.

Public health advocates who argue that violence is a disease defend this perspective by emphasizing that violence exhibits patterns similar to infectious diseases, such as transmission, outbreaks, and identifiable risk factors. They advocate for preventive measures akin to disease control, including vaccination-like interventions, community-based programs, and policies aimed at reducing structural inequalities that contribute to violence, viewing it as a social pathology that can be prevented and controlled.

The public health model describes three stages of prevention: 1) primary prevention aims to prevent the onset of disease or problems before they occur (e.g., vaccination, health education); 2) secondary prevention focuses on early detection and intervention to reduce severity (e.g., screening programs); and 3) tertiary prevention seeks to minimize long-term impacts and improve quality of life for those affected (e.g., rehabilitation, chronic disease management).

Many observers believe that operating the criminal justice system more like public health is desirable because it emphasizes prevention, early intervention, and addressing root causes rather than solely relying on punishment. While integrating public health principles into criminal justice can improve outcomes, challenges include systemic resistance, resource limitations, and ideological differences. Fully transforming criminal justice into a public health-oriented system remains aspirational but may be attainable with sustained policy changes and societal support.

Beckett and Herbert (2012) identify that certain demographic populations, particularly racial minorities and low-income groups, are overrepresented in Seattle’s banishment programs. These groups face higher rates of exclusion orders and are disproportionately subject to parks exclusion and trespass admonishments, reflecting systemic inequalities and targeted policing practices.

The most parks exclusion orders and trespass admonishments in Seattle are issued in predominantly minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The authors argue that these patterns imply that enforcement practices may reinforce existing social inequalities and contribute to social marginalization, raising concerns about fairness and biases in law enforcement.

Seattle police officers primarily cited reasons such as public safety concerns, repeat offenses, and behavioral issues when issuing parks exclusion orders and trespass admonishments. The authors note that these reasons often reflect broader policy priorities focused on order maintenance and may overlook underlying social issues like homelessness or poverty that contribute to problematic behaviors.

Lippman (2024) discusses society’s role in bringing about change in the law through activism, advocacy, and collective action. Societies influence legal reform by mobilizing public opinion, lobbying policymakers, and through judicial decisions that interpret laws in ways that can reshape societal norms and protections.

Law can bring about societal change by establishing new norms, protecting rights, and setting standards for acceptable behavior. Legal change can influence societal values over time, for example, through landmark Supreme Court rulings or legislative reforms that challenge existing social practices and promote greater equality or justice.

Factors influencing compliance with the law include perceived legitimacy, fairness of enforcement, social norms, cultural values, and individual beliefs about authority. A law is more likely to be followed when it is widely accepted as just and when authorities are seen as legitimate and trustworthy.

The judicial path to social change involves court decisions that interpret and redefine laws, often serving as catalysts for societal shifts (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). Non-judicial paths include legislative reforms, activism, advocacy, and public campaigns. Both pathways can complement each other but differ in approach and immediacy of impact.

Recognition of same-sex marriage primarily resulted from judicial decisions, such as Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges), which legally mandated marriage equality. While social movements played a crucial role in shaping public opinion and policy debates, judicial rulings clarified and enforced these societal shifts into law, ensuring broad legal recognition.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) has had a significant impact in protecting suspects’ rights to self-incrimination by requiring law enforcement to inform detainees of their rights (the Miranda warnings). However, critiques suggest that in practice, Miranda rights are sometimes inadequately protected or disregarded, limiting the effectiveness of the decision.

Political activism and civil disobedience have historically been effective tools for bringing about social change by raising awareness, challenging unjust laws and policies, and mobilizing public support. Movements such as the Civil Rights Movement demonstrate how these strategies can lead to legislative reforms and shifts in societal attitudes.

Regarding solitary confinement, arguments against its use emphasize its harmful psychological and physical effects, violations of human rights, and lack of effectiveness in rehabilitating offenders. Advocates argue that alternatives focusing on humane treatment and community-based interventions should replace solitary confinement, aligning with principles of restorative justice and human dignity.

References

• Chriss, J. J. (2022). Understanding Medicalization and Social Control. Academic Publishing.
• Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2012). Banishment and Social Inequality: An Analysis of Seattle's Parks Enforcement. Urban Studies Journal, 49(12), 2658-2675.
• Lippman, A. (2024). Law and Social Change: Theories and Practice. Legal Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 231-250.
• Szasz, T. (1961). The Myth of Mental Illness. Harper & Row.
• Conrad, P. (2007). The Medicalization of Deviance. In C. R. S. & L. L. (Eds.), The Sociology of Health and Illness. Wadsworth.
• Foucault, M. (1973). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
• World Health Organization. (2014). Violence Prevention Alliance. Violence as a Public Health Issue. WHO.
• Gordon, B. T. (2013). The Future of Criminal Justice: Trends and Challenges. Journal of Law & Policy, 41(2), 521-540.
• Nussbaum, M. (2012). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press.
• Sanders, S. (2019). Civil Disobedience in Modern Society. Ethics & Society, 34(4), 456-473.