Social Implications of Medical Issues (CGF1711A)

Social Implications of Medical Issues (CGF1711A)

Social Implications of Medical Issues (CGF1711A)

Social Implications of Medical Issues (CGF1711A)
SOC313: Social Implications of Medical Issues (CGF1711A)- Wk1 Discussion 1
Developmental Theories as They Relate to Chronic Conditions
Prior to completing this discussion, read the Bronfenbrenner Ecological theory in Chapter 1 of our textbook, the Schneiderman (2004) article, “Psychosocial, Behavioral, and Biological Aspects of Chronic Diseases,” the Kondrat (2013) article “Person In Environment” and review the Instructor Guidance. Watch the videos below to get an understanding of the Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model and Erik Erikson’s Biopsychosocial Model.
Choose one of the following chronic conditions:
Cancer
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Hypertension (High blood pressure)
Diabetes
Arthritis
Describe how the chronic condition leads to changes in behaviors, disability, and morbidity.
Review the three theories (Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological theory, Biopsychosocial, Person-In-Environment) in the Instructor Guidance and/or the videos in the resources list, and discuss the following in your initial post.
Consider one system in Bronfenbrenner’s theory, what system would have the greatest positive impact in managing the disease? Explain your answer.
Consider Biopsychosocial Model, which aspects of biological, psychological, and social domains are most important to understanding and promoting the patient’s health? Explain your answer.
Consider the Person-In-Environment system, how should the environment change to improve the person’s ability to live with the disease and vice versa?
Your initial contribution should be a minimum 150 words in length. Support your claims with research from at least one scholarly source beyond your textbook. Use proper APA formatting for in-text citations and references as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Example 1: Claims About Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine Causing Autism

Andrew Wakefield is a former physician, who is famous for his much disputed research on the connection between MMR vaccine and emergence of autism. Indeed, he misused the facts by distorting scientific information. In this fallacy, Correlation vs. Causation (also known as “false cause”), Wakefield et al. (1998) base the suggestion on two issues that are critical nowadays – autism and vaccination. In the 1998 research paper, the authors claim that there is a link between the administration of the MMR vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease. The medical researcher correlates the occurrence of autism to the use of vaccination, referring to the experience of only 12 children. The information provided is misleading and the case obviously required a more thorough observation.
Example 2: Barack Obama Stating That Sarah Palin is not a Nuclear Expert

In the interview with ABC News, Obama demonstrates how people can come to irrelevant conclusions by basing their argument on unrelated statements or facts. The President’s reasoning against his administration’s nuclear policy seems to be an ad hominem against Sarah Palin (Travers, 2010). Ad hominem is an attack on an opponent’s personality and feelings, not intellect. Obama clearly uses this tactic, which makes his statements seem rather childish. The best approach for Obama would have been to challenge Palin’s claims by resorting to the history and importance of the policy idea in order to gain acceptance.
Example 3: Planned Parenthood Ad

The phrase “planned parenthood” is equivocate, that is, has two different implications. According to Ted Cruz, its meaning shifts between pro-choice and pro-life in the abortion argument (Corasaniti, 2016). Cruz actually uses equivocation to accuse the competing candidate Donald Trump of inconsistency. In actuality, Cruz and his team are the ones who are being inconsistent in their attempts to define Planned Parenthood. A voter can easily conclude from this ad that Trump is pro-choice, which seems to be Cruz’s objective. However, abortion is just one of the services that Planned Parenthood provides. Trump supports the program and the benefits it provides for women, but not abortion. The best way for Cruz to avoid this error was to use speech reasonably.

The abovementioned fallacies are only a few examples of how people can make erroneous arguments. Reasoning has a better effect when the speakers are proficient in the field and justify their decisions in light of the best available scientific, social and economic understanding.

References

Corasaniti, N. (2016). Ted Cruz ad goes after Donald Trump’s stance on Planned Parenthood. New York Times. Retrieved on 1 August 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/ted-cruz-ad-goes-after-donald-trumps-stance-on-planned-parenthood.html

Travers, Karen (2010). ‘Not much of an expert’ – Obama slaps Sarah Palin for nuke policy criticism. ABC News. Retrieved on 1 August 2016 from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/exclusive-president-obama-slaps-sarah-palin-expert-nukes/story?id=10321775
Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., & Valentine, A. (1998). Retracted: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351 (9103), 637-641.

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now

Related Posts