It has been generally accepted by the medical community as a fact that hepatitis C is a dangerous liver disease caused by the hepatitis virus hepatitis C. That said, it is worth considering the reasons why this fact is accepted; Is it perhaps due to some irrefutable visual evidence or some universal symptomatic expression? In her book Lovers and Livers Jacalyn Duffin explores this phenomenon as a function of historical preconceptions, how the law constructs disease and natural history1. From Duffin's well-documented case study it can be clarified that this medical fact is not only accepted because it captures a purely natural state of affairs but also because it depends on the complexity of human action. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Hepatitis is certainly no exception to the fact that disease constructs emerge from the darkness of historical preconceptions; they are constantly revised to adapt to the intellectual and moral premises of the time1. Before any category of hepatitis was clarified, even before its cause was hypothesized, this Greek term defined diseases localized in the liver that caused chills, fever, pain, yellowed skin and general malaise1. Indeed, for the father of modern medicine, Hippocrates, and his many disciples, “hepatitis” meant any liver disease and was usually associated with jaundice1. As time went by, more and more specific classifications were clarified. From this example it is clear that the first preconception of the disease depends on human action; specifically, how we decided to classify the disease in the first place. The definition of any disease is at the mercy of the most recent scientific knowledge and techniques and these change with every human action towards new discoveries; who's to say hepatitis C won't be further categorized. Having said that, it can be argued that yes, although in the past the medical facts of a disease were subject to change, certainly in modern times, with all our new technologies (such as the microscope) and knowledge, we have irrefutably defined hepatitis C as own entity; therefore its definition no longer depends on human action. As convincing as this belief may be, more recent history shows that, as always, disease definitions are based on historical preconceptions. AIDS – frightening in its terrible effects – has had a profound effect on the definition of hepatitis1. AIDS served as a model for hepatitis C (which was first referred to by that name shortly after the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s) because it was another disease spread through blood transfusion and sex. Hepatitis C was another disease that could be used to blame patients for their afflictions; it was seen as a punishment for “bad behavior” such as homosexuality, drug use, promiscuity and homelessness1. With the appearance of AIDS, hepatitis C was no longer a natural state of affairs but an act of Providence by a higher power and a way to eliminate the unworthy and sinners; at the time the actions of many who defined the sick were tailored to this belief. Furthermore, historical biases can further manifest into more permanent elements that take the form of the laws that govern society; Again, human action can influence how a given doctor is accepted. An investigation into blood systems in Canada led by Horace Krever examined government compensation awarded to those patients who were given hepatitis C by a government-approved blood transfusion. There.
tags