Consequences of Biomedical Model for Understanding Health and Illness in Australia

This write-up explores the consequences of the dominance of biomedical explanations for understanding health and illness in Australia. It discusses the biomedical model, social determinants of health, and the role of functionalism and social constructionism in understanding health and illness. The biomedical approach is compared to other perspectives and its advantages and concerns are highlighted.

Sociology
Health Sociology
Name
Professors’ name
Institution
Date

Sociology
Introduction
Sociology can assume different definitions depending on the context in which it is being used. In
this context, however, sociology can be used to refer to the study of structure, development as
well as the functionality of the human society. It often a comparative study of social relationships
and institutions. In regard to that, this particular write-up is aimed towards understanding to
consequences of the dominance of biomedical explanations for an understanding of human
health and illness in Australia. In doing so two social theories will be used. Functionalism and
social constructionist theories, concepts and perspectives will be employed in trying to bring out
the consequences of the biomedical model for understanding health illness in Australia.
Biomedical model and social determinants of health
Biomedical approaches to health are a special approach to health care that often focuses on either
the physical or biological aspects of a disease or illness. They are also known as the ‘quick fix
approaches'. Biomedical approaches usually tend to diagnose as well as treat a condition
depending on the symptoms present (Hankivsky et al, 2017). It’s carried out by health
professionals who are specialized in various sectors. There are various examples that represent
and/or give a true reflection of what biomedical approaches are all about, these are;
chemotherapy employed in the treatment of cancer, x-rays meant for diagnosis of structured
bones, surgery, stitches to fix a cut or maybe medication to fix low or high blood pressure among
others.
Here the reason for illness is not the center and/ or concern of this model but rather the condition.
The condition is regarded as the concern of this particular model and the treatment is its only

Sociology
solution that this approach seeks to find. In addition to that, other aspects such as behavioral and
social determinants of health under this model are not put into consideration.
The biomedical approach of health care has been in existence for quite some time now and has
had a really big role to play as far as saving lives as well as increasing the life expectancy in
Australia is concerned. It’s the main approach that is believed to be delivering results as expected
and statistics indicated that this approach receives a majority of health care funding in Australia,
about 95% (Cockerham, 2014).
This approach has various advantages that have contributed to good health status in Australia.
Some of these advantages are outlined below;
First and foremost, it is credited to the reliable source of advancements in technology as well as
research. Through its efforts, more knowledge is being found regarding various means of
diagnosing as well as treatment of diseases.
Secondly, it plays a very crucial role in improving the quality of life. Numerous chronic
conditions can be managed with various medications and surgery. This has lead to improved
quality of life among many people in Australia.
Finally, it also increases life expectancy by enabling the treatment of various common problems
and illnesses.
Despite the numerous advantages associated with the biomedical approaches of health, various
concerns have been raised regarding this model. This approach is said to incomplete as it seeks
to just treat the problem and not understand the cause of that problem in the first place.

Sociology
Biomedical approaches focus more on individual agents and live out important elements such as
environmental effects among others (Cohn, 2014).
Social determinants of health have a totally different perspective of understanding human health
and illness. These can only be understood from three major perspectives as outlined below;
Domains-This refers to specific areas that are known to have an effect on human health.
Comprises of factors such as housing conditions, education level, social economic conditions,
and food systems
Levels-This refers to the approximate geographical scale at which the various domains indicated
above are thought to have an effect on human health (Glasgow et al, 2012).Comprises of family
unity, a specific neighborhood or maybe a city.
Pathways-This refers to the pathways in which individuals with various domains at different
levels. Comprises of trauma, exposure to pathogens, attendant stress, discrimination and lack of
access to health care.
Sociology and the role of perspectives
As mentioned earlier, sociology is quite dynamic. It tends to offer a perspective view of the
world and things are in various distinct dimensions. In many cases, sociologist focuses on
understanding various social contexts that underlies at a great extent the nature of human
behavior (Curry et al, 2013).
There are three major perspectives in sociology but we are only going to focus on two;
Functionalism and Social Constructionism. Using these three perspectives we are going to draw

Sociology
the consequences as well as implications of the biomedical model for understanding health and
illness in Australia.
Functionalism perspective
Under this theoretical perspective, there are various assumptions that are made; one good health
as well as effective medical care are important and are often considered to be essential elements
in the society and its overall wellbeing. A good society has to function well; ill health has the
effect of impairing the functionality of a society as it inhibits people from performing their
various roles in society.
In addition to that, it also assumed that the patient must always be in a position to perfume the
sick role for them to be perceived as ill and get the necessary treatment. Sick people must always
have the willingness to become well and not the opposite. For a sick person that wants to get
worse, then they are perceived to be faking their own sickness and such people are not
considered to be legitimately ill. It is also important to note that all these conditions must be met
for a person to be given the medical attention that they deserve (Kendler, 2012).
Finally, another assumption is that the relationship between physicians and patients is that of
hierarchical in nature. This implies that the physicians provide instructions and the patient has to
follow them to the latter with no questions asked (García-Moreno et al, 2015). Before any
diagnosis is given by the physician, the patient has to be asked some question in which they are
expected to respond to accurately and correctly.
Based on this perspective, it is correct to say that it considers an individual's good health for the
wellbeing of society and its functionality. It is very different from the biomedical approach
despite the fact that both aim towards the treatment of the ill condition in a patient,

Sociology
In Australia, this approach applies; it actually compliments the biomedical approach although in
most cases it is not prioritized over the later.
It is different from the biomedical approach in that it seeks to maintain the functionality of the
society by treating people with ill health while the biomedical approach just seeks to focus on the
condition on ill health and do away with without making any considerations or bringing the
society into play (Yoo, 2017).
Social Constructionism approach
This approach is quite different from the functionalism approach because here the main idea is
often based on the concept of reality as an integral part of social construction. In simpler terms,
this implies that there is no objectivity of reality. What really matters is an individual's own
perceptions about something (Colina, Marrone, Ingram, Sánchez, 2017).
Well social constructionism of health and illness focuses in matters such as the way some
patients have a controlled manner and a specific way in which they reveal their diseases or
something that they are suffering from as well as the lifestyle that they eventually adopt in the
process as they struggle to cope up with their ill health conditions (Baum & Fisher, 2014).
This approach holds that individuals have the power to produce their own conception of reality
and the knowledge obtained therein is a typical product of social dynamics (Fox, 2016).
This approach is very different from the biomedical approach in that for the biomedical
approach, a disease or illness is purely a biological condition that is universal and unchanging
but this approach has a totally different meaning of illness and it varies from individual to
individual. Illnesses are often considered as a social meaning of a condition.

Sociology
Conclusion
Based on the three different perspectives on health and illness it is clear that the biomedical
approach stands out as the best and this is the reason as to why it has been so dominantly used in
Australia despite the fact that it ignores some really essential components about the society and
its eternity.
Functionalism and social construction approach also play a role in health and illness matters in
Australia, especially in cases where the biomedical approach fails to provide answers to.
This write-up has proven that the biomedical approach is much more superior to the other
approaches and this explains its dominance for understanding health and illnesses in Australia.
Finally, it can be concluded that social determinants of health are aspects that are really sensitive
and should be brought into play along with the biomedical approaches so that they can aid in a
better understanding of health and illness not only in Australia but also across the globe
(Aneshensel, Phelan, Bierman, 2013).

Sociology
References
Aneshensel, C. S., Phelan, J. C., & Bierman, A. (2013). The sociology of mental health:
surveying the field. In Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 1-19). Springer,
Dordrecht.
Baum, F., & Fisher, M. (2014). Why behavioural health promotion endures despite its failure to
reduce health inequities. Sociology of health & illness, 36(2), 213-225.
Cockerham, W. C. (2014). The sociology of health in the United States: recent theoretical
contributions. Ciencia & saude coletiva, 19, 1031-1039.
Cohn, S. (2014). From health behaviours to health practices: an introduction. Sociology of health
& illness, 36(2), 157-162.
Colina, S., Marrone, N., Ingram, M., & Sánchez, D. (2017). Translation quality assessment in
health research: A functionalist alternative to back-translation. Evaluation & the Health
Professions, 40(3), 267-293.
Curry, L. A., Krumholz, H. M., O’cathain, A., Clark, V. L. P., Cherlin, E., & Bradley, E. H.
(2013). Mixed methods in biomedical and health services research. Circulation:
Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 6(1), 119-123.
Fox, N. J. (2016). Health sociology from post-structuralism to the new
materialisms. Health:, 20(1), 62-74.
García-Moreno, C., Hegarty, K., d'Oliveira, A. F. L., Koziol-McLain, J., Colombini, M., &
Feder, G. (2015). The health-systems response to violence against women. The
Lancet, 385(9977), 1567-1579.

Sociology
Glasgow, R. E., Vinson, C., Chambers, D., Khoury, M. J., Kaplan, R. M., & Hunter, C. (2012).
National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science:
current and future directions. American journal of public health, 102(7), 1274-1281.
Hankivsky, O., Doyal, L., Einstein, G., Kelly, U., Shim, J., Weber, L., & Repta, R. (2017). The
odd couple: using biomedical and intersectional approaches to address health
inequities. Global health action, 10(sup2), 1326686.
Kendler, K. S. (2012). The dappled nature of causes of psychiatric illness: Replacing the
organic–functional/hardware–software dichotomy with empirically based
pluralism. Molecular psychiatry, 17(4), 377.
Yoo, J. (2017). Illness as Teacher: Learning from Illness. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 42(1), 54-68.