Healthcare in the United States Today

Subject: Healthcare Institution
Pages: 4
Words: 866
Reading time:
3 min
Study level: College

Traditional medical ideology not only does not disappear but develops and deepens on a new basis. A number of classic philosophical questions remain in the doctrine of medicine, such as the question of the essence of medicine as a science, the purpose of health care as a system, and the core ideology base for doctors. Ideological and methodological problems of medicine, analysis of the process, and results of the historical development of medicine and public health are increasingly coming to the fore.

Moreover, American doctors should possess the qualities such as high professional competence and culture, top moral qualities, proficiency in modern educational technologies, and a competency approach implementation in vocational education. Doctors are quickly adopting new methods of learning these ideological elements through innovative technological approaches, cultural health capital, and new models of doctor-patient relationships.

The modern ideology of medicine in the USA is a complex of disciplines of a predominantly natural-science profile; however, at the same time, medicine is humanistic in its essence. Although the current ideology of medicine in the USA does not resemble previous forms, the core values are still present. Medicine deals with various people who require attention to the cultural and spiritual aspects of human existence. The current relationship between the natural science and the humanistic component in medical experience makes the study of medicine from the humanitarian point relevant, which allows expressing the value-based form of the humanistic perspective.

This approach was rooted in the traditions of American medical culture, which aims not only to eliminate the deadly danger but also to develop an individually healthy lifestyle and teach the patient to embrace it. Therefore, doctors acquire the correct ideology by analyzing humanistic connections, implementing modern technologies, and shifting the current form of doctor-patient relationships.

A clear understanding of the current realities is not possible without addressing and comparing the dynamics of previous doctor-patient relationships and the role of the doctor. Particular attention should be given to the concept of informed consent, actively advocated in modern scientific literature primarily from an ethical point of view. The essence of the given idea is that traditional paternalism in the doctor-patient relationship gives way to a new relationship paradigm. The doctor ceases to play the role of the patient’s “father,” who alone determines that it is for the patient’s benefit and who is fully responsible for this choice.

Therefore, the medical professional turns into an advisor, a patient’s consultant in the selection of treatment. He/she provides the patient with complete information about the disease and possible treatments, and the patient has the right to choose a medical intervention.

Cultural health capital can be classified as a summation of approaches, culture-oriented skills, behavioral patterns, and style of interaction, which are exchanged and valued between the patient and doctor. The given concept allows opening new opportunities to build professional trust and reciprocal exchange of key information. In the ethical and psychological understanding, the subject-object relationship between the doctor and the patient, in terms of their constantly changing positions and roles, may not fit into any strictly specific model.

Therefore, designing mutually acceptable relationships necessarily involves taking into account various factors of social, cultural, and medical activities. In a mosaic relationship between a doctor and a patient, both of them have the right to manifest the many facets of their personality and cultural background. In some situations, it may lead to the leader identity issue of patient and doctor.

The poor and uneducated members of the society tend to possess lower levels of cultural health capital because the given individuals might have cultural prejudices. It severely hinders open communication, which is highly essential for a successful treatment process. The system structure and the unity of knowledge in medicine are conditioned both by the object and subject and the methodological and medical-theoretical foundations prevailing in it. An important role is played by the inclusion of ethnic and cultural knowledge in a multi-level system of medicine.

Therefore, this unity is ensured by the culture-related medical language, the method of medical concepts, as well as information and computer technologies. Cultural health capital progression in medicine can be characterized as a process of changing medical knowledge from incomplete to complete and more adequate forms. In addition, it includes a true reflection of the mechanisms, laws, and patterns underlying the norms of cultural complexity, health, and disease, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention.

Low cultural health capital or the lack of it can be detrimental for productive cooperation between two parties. The current medical model, or partnership model, theoretically sees the relationship between the physician and the patient as subjects cooperating in achieving a common goal due to a painful condition. This goal can be a speedy recovery, alleviation of suffering, mutual consent of partners regarding medical and social recommendations. Therefore, the mass of a various individual and cultural problems between the doctor and the patient occurs.

In conclusion, there are two main obstacles to fruitful communication between the doctor and the patient – the lack of communication and low cultural health capital. It includes a complex of gender, social, religious, psychological, and other issues. In this regard, building fully responsive partnerships on the principle of cultural health capital is not possible.