RESUMEN
Whilst many lessons were learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing reflection is needed to develop and maintain preparedness for future outbreaks. Within the field of infectious disease and public health there remain silos and hierarchies in interdisciplinary work, with the risk that humanities and social sciences remain on the epistemological peripheries. However, these disciplines offer insights, expertise and tools that contribute to understanding responses to disease and uptake of interventions for prevention and treatment. In this Perspective, using examples from our own cross-disciplinary research and engagement programme on vaccine hesitancy in South Africa and the United Kingdom (UK), we propose closer integration of expertise, research and methods from humanities and social sciences into pandemic preparedness.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanidades , Pandemias , Ciencias Sociales , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Reino Unido , Sudáfrica , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacilación a la Vacunación/psicología , Salud Pública , Preparación para una PandemiaAsunto(s)
Cesárea , Humanos , Cesárea/historia , Embarazo , Femenino , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XIX , Historia del Siglo XXIRESUMEN
In this article we explore the historical antecedents and ongoing perpetuation of the idea that medical professionals must adhere to a specific 'character'. In the late nineteenth century, an ideal of the medical student as 'born not made' was substantiated through medical school opening addresses and other medical literature. An understanding prevailed that students would have a natural inclination that would suit them to medical work, which was predicated on class structures. As we move into the twentieth-century context, we see that such underpinnings remained, even if the idea of 'character' becomes 'characteristics'. This was articulated through emerging psychological and sociological perspectives on education, as well as medical school admission processes. The significance ascribed to character and characteristics-based suitability continues to exclude and limits who can access medical careers. In the final part of the article, we argue that a framework of uncertainty can and should be mobilised to re-evaluate the role of doctors' education and critique long-standing notions of professional identity, via the integration of medical humanities and clearer professionalism teaching within medical curricula.
Asunto(s)
Educación de Pregrado en Medicina , Educación Médica , Estudiantes de Medicina , Humanos , Profesionalismo , Humanidades/educación , Estudiantes de Medicina/psicología , Curriculum , EmocionesRESUMEN
The term 'minimally invasive' was coined in 1986 to describe a range of procedures that involved making very small incisions or no incision at all for diseases traditionally treated by open surgery. We examine this major shift in British medical practice as a means of probing the nature of surgical innovation in the twentieth century. We first consider how concerns regarding surgical invasiveness had long been present in surgery, before examining how changing notions of post-operative care formed a foundation for change. We then go on to focus on a professional network involved in the promotion of minimally invasive therapy led by the urologist John Wickham. The minimally invasive movement, we contend, brought into focus tensions between surgical innovation and the evidence-based model of medical practice. Premised upon professional collaborations beyond surgery and a re-positioning of the patient role, we show how the movement elucidated changing notions of surgical authority.
RESUMEN
The origins of contemporary exclusion of surgical methods from patenting lie in the complexities of managing credit claims in operative surgery, recognized in the nineteenth century. While surgical methods were not deemed patentable, surgeons were nevertheless embedded within patent culture. In an atmosphere of heightened awareness about the importance of 'inventors', how surgeons should be recognized and rewarded for their inventions was an important question. I examine an episode during the 1840s which seemed to concretize the inapplicability of patents to surgical practice, before looking at alternatives to patenting, used by surgeons to gain social and financial credit for inventions.