{"title":"谁应该为阿片类药物危机负责?医学责任索赔的语篇分析。","authors":"Ariane Hanemaayer, Shahina Parvin","doi":"10.1007/s10912-024-09918-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The opioid crisis has continued despite efforts to intervene on its identified causes. In this article, we analyse responsibility claims in pain and addiction medical journals concerning the opioid crisis. Selected journals represent the opioid crisis as a medical problem. Using the method of discourse analysis, we examine 32 sampled articles from 3 medical journals published over the past decade to understand how the cause of the opioid crisis is represented. Drawing upon the sociological concept of responsibilization, we observe and explain two patterns in the responsibility claims. Pain medicine specialty journals tended to responsibilize physicians for their part in the crisis, whereas the addiction journal directed responsibility toward users. Despite some differences in proposed solutions, statements in both journals tend to responsibilize individual behaviours as the cause of the crisis. Accordingly, each article suggested solutions that target these behaviours. We argue that by focusing on individual behaviours, other factors and social conditions related to the crisis are omitted, including pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and health system infrastructure. We advocate for the need to redefine the assumptions related to the cause of the opioid crisis in order to consider alternative solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":45518,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Humanities","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Is responsible for the Opioid Crisis? A Discourse Analysis of Responsibility Claims in Medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Ariane Hanemaayer, Shahina Parvin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10912-024-09918-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The opioid crisis has continued despite efforts to intervene on its identified causes. In this article, we analyse responsibility claims in pain and addiction medical journals concerning the opioid crisis. Selected journals represent the opioid crisis as a medical problem. Using the method of discourse analysis, we examine 32 sampled articles from 3 medical journals published over the past decade to understand how the cause of the opioid crisis is represented. Drawing upon the sociological concept of responsibilization, we observe and explain two patterns in the responsibility claims. Pain medicine specialty journals tended to responsibilize physicians for their part in the crisis, whereas the addiction journal directed responsibility toward users. Despite some differences in proposed solutions, statements in both journals tend to responsibilize individual behaviours as the cause of the crisis. Accordingly, each article suggested solutions that target these behaviours. We argue that by focusing on individual behaviours, other factors and social conditions related to the crisis are omitted, including pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and health system infrastructure. We advocate for the need to redefine the assumptions related to the cause of the opioid crisis in order to consider alternative solutions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Humanities\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-024-09918-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-024-09918-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Who Is responsible for the Opioid Crisis? A Discourse Analysis of Responsibility Claims in Medicine.
The opioid crisis has continued despite efforts to intervene on its identified causes. In this article, we analyse responsibility claims in pain and addiction medical journals concerning the opioid crisis. Selected journals represent the opioid crisis as a medical problem. Using the method of discourse analysis, we examine 32 sampled articles from 3 medical journals published over the past decade to understand how the cause of the opioid crisis is represented. Drawing upon the sociological concept of responsibilization, we observe and explain two patterns in the responsibility claims. Pain medicine specialty journals tended to responsibilize physicians for their part in the crisis, whereas the addiction journal directed responsibility toward users. Despite some differences in proposed solutions, statements in both journals tend to responsibilize individual behaviours as the cause of the crisis. Accordingly, each article suggested solutions that target these behaviours. We argue that by focusing on individual behaviours, other factors and social conditions related to the crisis are omitted, including pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and health system infrastructure. We advocate for the need to redefine the assumptions related to the cause of the opioid crisis in order to consider alternative solutions.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Humanities publishes original papers that reflect its enlarged focus on interdisciplinary inquiry in medicine and medical education. Such inquiry can emerge in the following ways: (1) from the medical humanities, which includes literature, history, philosophy, and bioethics as well as those areas of the social and behavioral sciences that have strong humanistic traditions; (2) from cultural studies, a multidisciplinary activity involving the humanities; women''s, African-American, and other critical studies; media studies and popular culture; and sociology and anthropology, which can be used to examine medical institutions, practice and education with a special focus on relations of power; and (3) from pedagogical perspectives that elucidate what and how knowledge is made and valued in medicine, how that knowledge is expressed and transmitted, and the ideological basis of medical education.