Tesh S N
University of Michigan, USA.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1995 Winter;20(4):1001-24. doi: 10.1215/03616878-20-4-1001.
Conventional public health wisdom holds that the end of the nineteenth century saw a dramatic change in beliefs about what causes disease, as early convictions about the importance of broad social factors gave way to a concentration on microorganisms. I argue, however, that in both the middle and late nineteenth century nearly everyone, professionals and laypeople alike, saw disease causality in terms of precise, invisible entities, and that prevention policies were as reductionist and narrow as the available technology would allow. My argument is based on a rereading of the primary documents that other scholars have seen as supporting the idea of two distinct public health periods, and on a new interpretation of the revisionist history that questions the idea. I suggest that health policy analysts today are too vague about the meaning of "social factors" and that disease prevention policies might be better if the term was clarified.
传统的公共卫生观念认为,19世纪末人们对疾病成因的看法发生了巨大变化,早期对广泛社会因素重要性的信念让位于对微生物的关注。然而,我认为,在19世纪中叶和后期,几乎每个人,无论是专业人士还是普通大众,都从精确的、不可见的实体角度看待疾病的因果关系,而且预防政策在现有技术允许的范围内同样是还原论的且狭隘的。我的观点基于对其他学者视为支持两个不同公共卫生时期观点的原始文献的重新解读,以及对质疑该观点的修正主义历史的新解释。我认为,如今的卫生政策分析师对“社会因素”的含义过于模糊,如果能澄清这个术语,疾病预防政策可能会更好。