4.1 Article

'We are the canary in a coal mine': Establishing a disease category and a new health risk

期刊

HEALTH RISK & SOCIETY
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 129-147

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13698575.2012.661040

关键词

categorisation; risk; health; medically unexplained symptoms; electromagnetic fields

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper analyses the process of establishing a risk object - electromagnetic fields. This example will be used to examine risk categorisation as such, and to explore how individual and collective attempts to establish a new risk interact with health policy. We studied people who claim to suffer from electro-hypersensitivity. We conducted participant observation and repeated interviews with 18 electro-hypersensitivity sufferers, and interviewed representatives of 'patient' organisations and health policy-makers in the Netherlands. In their attempts to trace particular outcomes (electro-hypersensitivity) to a specific risk factor (electromagnetic fields), we observed electro-hypersensitivity sufferers assembling complaints and complainants into a single illness category, distinguishing 'real' from 'fake' cases, and turning to measurement and experiments in order to show that others are at risk. Although electro-hypersensitivity sufferers mimic scientific practices, they have thus far failed to have their illness recognised. To non-sufferers, electro-hypersensitivity remains a psychosomatic condition. This position entails a dual failure for electro-hypersensitivity sufferers - they suffer from medically unexplained symptoms while identifying with a politically and medically unrecognised label. This very failure, however, provides perceived legitimacy for political activism. Although those who categorise themselves as having electro-hypersensitivity have failed to establish electromagnetic fields as a risk, their suffering is increasingly recognised. This partial recognition, we argue, is an attempt to depoliticise the issue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据