The politics and science of health and disease remain contested terrain among scientists, health practitioners, policy makers, industry, communities, and the public. Stakeholders in disputes about illnesses or conditions disagree over their fundamental causes as well as how they should be treated and prevented. This thought-provoking book crosses disciplinary boundaries by engaging with both public health policy and social science, asserting that science, activism, and policy are not separate issues and showing how the contribution of environmental factors in disease is often overlooked.

What makes a disease real? Why is it that patients with chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia are doubted when they say they are in pain, and cannot access the same benefits of patient-hood that others can? What defines the limits of our belief and, ultimately, compassion, when it comes to disease? These are the questions approached in this book, which draws upon patients’ experiences and situates them among a diverse set of literatures, from the history and philosophy of medicine to the sociology of health and disease. The question of a patient’s identity and their understanding of disease is often assumed to emerge from their relationship with healthcare, but the case is made here that other, inter-personal factors are more salient. What a patient with a contested illness comes up against is not simply a medical categorisation – it is a prevailing notion of disease across society, and one they struggle to assimilate themselves into. Contested Illness in Context will appeal to students and researchers interested in fields such as the history and philosophy of medicine, the sociology of health and illness, medical anthropology, or disease and illness generally. It may also interest patients and doctors who struggle with difficult medical cases.

The relationship between power and illness is the subject of limited discussion despite it being one of the most important issues in health-related policies and services. In an effort to correct this, Contesting Illness engages critically with processes through which the meanings and effects of illness shape and are shaped by specific sets of practices. Featuring original contributions by researchers working in a number of disciplines, this collection examines intersections of power, contestation, and illness with the aid of various critical theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches. The contributors explore experiences of illness, diagnosis, and treatment, and analyse wider discursive and policy contexts within which people become ill and engage with health care systems. Though each essay is unique in its approach, they are linked together by a shared focus on contestation as a conceptual tool in considering the relationship between power and illness. Rather than focus on a single example, the contributors address different contested illnesses (chronic fatigue syndrome and environmental illness, for instance) as well as the contested dimensions of illnesses that are accepted as legitimate such as cancer and autism. Contesting Illness offers valuable insights into the assumptions, practices, and interactions that shape illness in the twenty-first century. Contributors Jan Angus Pia H. Bülow Peter Conrad Joyce Davidson Helen Gremillion Maren Klawiter Joshua Kelley Steve Kroll-Smith Katherine Lippel Pamela Moss Michael Orsini Michael J. Prince Annie Potts Mary Ellen Purkis Sharon Dale Stone Cheryl Stults Katherine Teghtsoonian Jane M. Ussher Catherine van Mossel

What makes a disease real? Why is it that patients with chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia are doubted when they say they are in pain, and cannot access the same benefits of patient-hood that others can? What defines the limits of our belief and, ultimately, compassion, when it comes to disease? These are the questions approached in this book, which draws upon patients' experiences and situates them among a diverse set of literatures, from the history and philosophy of medicine to the sociology of health and disease. The question of a patient's identity and their understanding of disease is often assumed to emerge from their relationship with healthcare, but the case is made here that other, inter-personal factors are more salient. What a patient with a contested illness comes up against is not simply a medical categorisation - it is a prevailing notion of disease across society, and one they struggle to assimilate themselves into. Contested Illness in Context will appeal to students and researchers interested in fields such as the history and philosophy of medicine, the sociology of health and illness, medical anthropology, or disease and illness generally. It may also interest patients and doctors who struggle with difficult medical cases.

While many doctors claim that Lyme disease—a tick-borne bacterial infection—is easily diagnosed and treated, other doctors and the patients they care for argue that it can persist beyond standard antibiotic treatment in the form of chronic Lyme disease. In Divided Bodies, Abigail A. Dumes offers an ethnographic exploration of the Lyme disease controversy that sheds light on the relationship between contested illness and evidence-based medicine in the United States. Drawing on fieldwork among Lyme patients, doctors, and scientists, Dumes formulates the notion of divided bodies: she argues that contested illnesses are disorders characterized by the division of bodies of thought in which the patient's experience is often in conflict with how it is perceived. Dumes also shows how evidence-based medicine has paradoxically amplified differences in practice and opinion by providing a platform of legitimacy on which interested parties—patients, doctors, scientists, politicians—can make claims to medical truth.

In 25 papers, academics and a few environmental scientists/ activists discuss profound social, policy, and competing paradigm issues concerning the contested environment-disease link in a "postnatural" world. Include discussion questions. Kroll-Smith is a professor of sociology at the U. of New Orleans. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

This book represents the first collection of research on health social movements. Demonstrates that health social movements are an innovative and powerful form of political action. Brings together the study of health and illness with social movement theory in order to establish a basis for the study of health social movements. Covers disease-based movements focused on diseases such as Alzheimer’s and breast cancer. Also addresses issue-based movements such as the pro-choice movement, the movement for complementary and alternative medicine, and movements around stem cell research. Illustrates the value of interdisciplinary approaches to studying health social movements.

This much-needed collection of original articles invites the reader to examine the key issues in the lives of women with chronic illnesses. The authors explore how society reacts to women with chronic illness and how women living with chronic illness cope with the uncertainty of their bodies in a society that desires certainty. Additionally, issues surrounding women with chronic illness in the workplace and the impact of chronic illness on women's relationships are sensitively considered.

Abigail A. Dumes offers an ethnographic exploration of the Lyme disease controversy to shed light on the relationship between contested illness and evidence-based medicine in the United States.

Editor of the award-winning site Feministing.com, Maya Dusenbery brings together scientific and sociological research, interviews with doctors and researchers, and personal stories from women across the country to provide the first comprehensive, accessible look at how sexism in medicine harms women today. In Doing Harm, Dusenbery explores the deep, systemic problems that underlie women’s experiences of feeling dismissed by the medical system. Women have been discharged from the emergency room mid-heart attack with a prescription for anti-anxiety meds, while others with autoimmune diseases have been labeled “chronic complainers” for years before being properly diagnosed. Women with endometriosis have been told they are just overreacting to “normal” menstrual cramps, while still others have “contested” illnesses like chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia that, dogged by psychosomatic suspicions, have yet to be fully accepted as “real” diseases by the whole of the profession. An eye-opening read for patients and health care providers alike, Doing Harm shows how women suffer because the medical community knows relatively less about their diseases and bodies and too often doesn’t trust their reports of their symptoms. The research community has neglected conditions that disproportionately affect women and paid little attention to biological differences between the sexes in everything from drug metabolism to the disease factors—even the symptoms of a heart attack. Meanwhile, a long history of viewing women as especially prone to “hysteria” reverberates to the present day, leaving women battling against a stereotype that they’re hypochondriacs whose ailments are likely to be “all in their heads.” Offering a clear-eyed explanation of the root causes of this insidious and entrenched bias and laying out its sometimes catastrophic consequences, Doing Harm is a rallying wake-up call that will change the way we look at health care for women.