Healthcare in the United States has always been a hot topic for discussion. The Structural-Functional Approach “sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability” (Macontis, 2014.) This theory as it relates to healthcare believes that every person has to be healthy and be a productive member of society.
According to Talcott Parsons, illness causes dysfunction in society. People who are assumed ill are unable to perform their duties in society. The sick role according to Parsons, releases people from the normal obligations of daily life such as going to work or school (Macontis, 2014). They are entering into a role of” sanctioned deviance.” This goes along with the thought that everyone needs to …show more content…
Someone who is perceived to have caused their condition would not be able to assume this role. An example of this is someone who has lung cancer. If it is determined that the lung cancer was caused by the poor choice to smoke a person would not be able to be relieved of their duties to society. Another example would be someone who is considered obese and unable to perform their duties effectively. They will be afforded less sympathy if they have chosen to eat an unhealthy diet and not exercised appropriately.
Functionalism does believe that everyone should have access to effective medical care. If people do not have the option to seek medical attention, how will they ever leave the sick role? Therefore, in terms of Obamacare, functionalist would actually support it. By allowing more people to have access to medical insurance, it means more people will quickly assume their productive role in society after an illness. If people do not have access to medical care it will cause more dysfunction for society. As people will stay sicker longer and will be excused from their normal role in …show more content…
While it has some good aspects, it does not take into account for all the variations of sickness that people suffer with during their lives. The sick role is still very prevalent in society today although it has taken a little bit of a different shape then Parsons has proposed. If someone is sick and has to call out of work most establishments require you provide a doctor’s note after a certain number of days off. This still gives the doctor a lot of control when it comes to the treatment of the patient. While the patient still may feel as though they cannot resume they normal function, if the doctor says they must go back then they have too. Functionalism sees illness as a dysfunctional part of society and one that needs to be rectified quickly. It does not take into account disabilities and chronic illness and the role these people should assume. It also does not take into account the what affects people receiving good healthcare. Such as, social class, gender and poverty. Some people can just not afford medical care therefore would be seen as deviant or not wanting to get
According to Talcott Parsons, illness causes dysfunction in society. People who are assumed ill are unable to perform their duties in society. The sick role according to Parsons, releases people from the normal obligations of daily life such as going to work or school (Macontis, 2014). They are entering into a role of” sanctioned deviance.” This goes along with the thought that everyone needs to …show more content…
Someone who is perceived to have caused their condition would not be able to assume this role. An example of this is someone who has lung cancer. If it is determined that the lung cancer was caused by the poor choice to smoke a person would not be able to be relieved of their duties to society. Another example would be someone who is considered obese and unable to perform their duties effectively. They will be afforded less sympathy if they have chosen to eat an unhealthy diet and not exercised appropriately.
Functionalism does believe that everyone should have access to effective medical care. If people do not have the option to seek medical attention, how will they ever leave the sick role? Therefore, in terms of Obamacare, functionalist would actually support it. By allowing more people to have access to medical insurance, it means more people will quickly assume their productive role in society after an illness. If people do not have access to medical care it will cause more dysfunction for society. As people will stay sicker longer and will be excused from their normal role in …show more content…
While it has some good aspects, it does not take into account for all the variations of sickness that people suffer with during their lives. The sick role is still very prevalent in society today although it has taken a little bit of a different shape then Parsons has proposed. If someone is sick and has to call out of work most establishments require you provide a doctor’s note after a certain number of days off. This still gives the doctor a lot of control when it comes to the treatment of the patient. While the patient still may feel as though they cannot resume they normal function, if the doctor says they must go back then they have too. Functionalism sees illness as a dysfunctional part of society and one that needs to be rectified quickly. It does not take into account disabilities and chronic illness and the role these people should assume. It also does not take into account the what affects people receiving good healthcare. Such as, social class, gender and poverty. Some people can just not afford medical care therefore would be seen as deviant or not wanting to get