Seminario en inglés
A cargo de Stuart Blume (Universidad de Ámsterdam/Universidad de Cuenca)
What happens when the medical characterization of a set of symptoms as corresponding to a disease is rejected by people with those symptoms? It is easy to think of examples: Deaf communities resisting the notion of deafness-as-pathology, for example, or ‘pro-anas’ claiming that anorexia is a life-style choice. There are also groups that insist that they are suffering from a disease that the medical profession considers does not exist. In some parts of the world (though not all) the authority of the medical profession has declined in the past few decades and conflicts like these have become more common. Can such conflicts be resolved – and if so, how? Sometimes disagreements involve issues of representation or of rights. Who has the right to speak ‘on behalf of’ those with a condition? And how should social scientists respond to such tensions or conflicts when they encounter them in their research?