FYI - FW: CONF: Problem of Pain, June 7-8
Jeff Reznick
Description
Collection
Title:
FYI - FW: CONF: Problem of Pain, June 7-8
Creator:
Jeff Reznick
Date:
6/3/2002
Text:
The program announcement below, from the Institute for Health, Health
Care Policy and Aging Research at Rutgers, may be of interest to some
members of the orthotics and prosthetics community.
The complete program, entitled THE PROBLEM OF PAIN IN MEDICINE, CULTURE,
AND PUBLIC POLICY, is available here:
<URL Redacted>
and you can learn more about the Institute here:
<URL Redacted>
---
Jeffrey S. Reznick, Ph.D.
Director and Senior Research Fellow
Orthotic & Prosthetic Assistance Fund, Inc. (OPAF)
330 John Carlyle Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
www.opfund.org
-----Original Message-----
From: H-NET List on the History of Science, Medicine, and Technology
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN IN MEDICINE, CULTURE, AND PUBLIC POLICY
Friday-Saturday, June 7-8, 2002 Hyatt Regency Hotel, New Brunswick, NJ
Registration information: <URL Redacted>
Pain is a much debated issue in American health care, law, and culture.
Panel I, At a Crossroads? Pain and Policy in the 1990s, examines the
growing recognition and regulation of pain in the United States, and the
realization that pain often goes inadequately treated. But is this
problem best managed in courtrooms, by state medical boards, through
legislative actions at the level of state and federal government, or by
individual doctors and their patients? This has been a key question in
the 1990s and still today. The two papers presented here - one by pain
policy scholar David Joransen, another by bioethicist and legal scholar
Ben Rich - provide complementary, yet differing, perspectives on this
question, and on what has happened in the past decade.
The panel provides an introduction to the politics of pain and the
making of pain policy, while also introducing us to different
interpretations of how and why pain policy has changed over the past
decade in the United States.
In Panel 2, Do They Feel It Like We Do?: Race Relations, Ethnicity, and
the Recognition of Pain, we move to a specific area of controversy
surrounding the treatment and recognition of pain across lines of
racial, ethnic, and cultural difference. Studies in the 1990's,
including the papers of Knox Todd in the context of emergency medicine,
have documented and tried to explain the origins and disparities in the
treatment of pain in minority communities. The other two papers in this
panel - by historians Julie Livingston and Keith Wailoo - attempt to
situate these documented differences in historical and sociological
context. They broaden the discussion of race, ethnicity, and pain by
examining the ways in which pain and discourse surrounding pain reflect
broader political, economic, and cultural concerns relating to groups,
group difference, and particularly to the African American and African
experience in Botswana in recent decades.
Panel III, Locating Pain: Saints, Scientists, and the Psyche, asks the
question, how do cultural values define what is, and is not, an
authoritative expression about pain? Here, historians Esther Cohen,
Andrew Heinze, and Caroline Acker provide us, respectively, with
accounts of how pain has been expressed 1) within late medieval
Christian Europe,
2) within discourses of assimilation in 20th century American ethnic
cultures, and 3) in rarefied scientific communities interested in
alternatives to opiate analgesics. Locating pain highlights the ways
in which pain means different things depending on where it is located.
Where pain is located draws attention to issues as disparate as stigma,
religiosity, group identity, social suffering, and the constitution of
lay and professional communities. Who, then, speaks most
authoritatively on the question of pain and its management, how has this
changed over time, and how is the issue of pain used in different
contexts?
Panel IV, Crisis and Credibility: Making Sense of the Patient in Pain,
puts on the table the controversies surrounding particular patient
communities, and asks the question, what is at stake in creating
identities and constituencies around experiences of pain? A great many
controversies surrounding pain reflect the fact that pain is a
subjective experience that is not easily measured, that our efforts to
objectify pain necessarily fail to capture something fundamental about
the patient's lived experience. The two papers in this panel, by Jean
Jackson and Emma Whelan, provide ethnographic and sociological accounts
of patients' experiences with chronic pain and endometriosis today, and
their efforts to establish patient experience as the seat of authority.
In both papers, this confrontation involves a complex negotiation with
specialists over issues of legitimacy and credibility - experts who are
removed from the patient's experiences yet authorized to speak about the
patient's pain. What are the factors, therefore, that authorize
experts, laypersons, and society-at-large to recognize, validate, and
manage pain? What are the problems in creating and legitimating these
patient identities?
Care Policy and Aging Research at Rutgers, may be of interest to some
members of the orthotics and prosthetics community.
The complete program, entitled THE PROBLEM OF PAIN IN MEDICINE, CULTURE,
AND PUBLIC POLICY, is available here:
<URL Redacted>
and you can learn more about the Institute here:
<URL Redacted>
---
Jeffrey S. Reznick, Ph.D.
Director and Senior Research Fellow
Orthotic & Prosthetic Assistance Fund, Inc. (OPAF)
330 John Carlyle Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
www.opfund.org
-----Original Message-----
From: H-NET List on the History of Science, Medicine, and Technology
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN IN MEDICINE, CULTURE, AND PUBLIC POLICY
Friday-Saturday, June 7-8, 2002 Hyatt Regency Hotel, New Brunswick, NJ
Registration information: <URL Redacted>
Pain is a much debated issue in American health care, law, and culture.
Panel I, At a Crossroads? Pain and Policy in the 1990s, examines the
growing recognition and regulation of pain in the United States, and the
realization that pain often goes inadequately treated. But is this
problem best managed in courtrooms, by state medical boards, through
legislative actions at the level of state and federal government, or by
individual doctors and their patients? This has been a key question in
the 1990s and still today. The two papers presented here - one by pain
policy scholar David Joransen, another by bioethicist and legal scholar
Ben Rich - provide complementary, yet differing, perspectives on this
question, and on what has happened in the past decade.
The panel provides an introduction to the politics of pain and the
making of pain policy, while also introducing us to different
interpretations of how and why pain policy has changed over the past
decade in the United States.
In Panel 2, Do They Feel It Like We Do?: Race Relations, Ethnicity, and
the Recognition of Pain, we move to a specific area of controversy
surrounding the treatment and recognition of pain across lines of
racial, ethnic, and cultural difference. Studies in the 1990's,
including the papers of Knox Todd in the context of emergency medicine,
have documented and tried to explain the origins and disparities in the
treatment of pain in minority communities. The other two papers in this
panel - by historians Julie Livingston and Keith Wailoo - attempt to
situate these documented differences in historical and sociological
context. They broaden the discussion of race, ethnicity, and pain by
examining the ways in which pain and discourse surrounding pain reflect
broader political, economic, and cultural concerns relating to groups,
group difference, and particularly to the African American and African
experience in Botswana in recent decades.
Panel III, Locating Pain: Saints, Scientists, and the Psyche, asks the
question, how do cultural values define what is, and is not, an
authoritative expression about pain? Here, historians Esther Cohen,
Andrew Heinze, and Caroline Acker provide us, respectively, with
accounts of how pain has been expressed 1) within late medieval
Christian Europe,
2) within discourses of assimilation in 20th century American ethnic
cultures, and 3) in rarefied scientific communities interested in
alternatives to opiate analgesics. Locating pain highlights the ways
in which pain means different things depending on where it is located.
Where pain is located draws attention to issues as disparate as stigma,
religiosity, group identity, social suffering, and the constitution of
lay and professional communities. Who, then, speaks most
authoritatively on the question of pain and its management, how has this
changed over time, and how is the issue of pain used in different
contexts?
Panel IV, Crisis and Credibility: Making Sense of the Patient in Pain,
puts on the table the controversies surrounding particular patient
communities, and asks the question, what is at stake in creating
identities and constituencies around experiences of pain? A great many
controversies surrounding pain reflect the fact that pain is a
subjective experience that is not easily measured, that our efforts to
objectify pain necessarily fail to capture something fundamental about
the patient's lived experience. The two papers in this panel, by Jean
Jackson and Emma Whelan, provide ethnographic and sociological accounts
of patients' experiences with chronic pain and endometriosis today, and
their efforts to establish patient experience as the seat of authority.
In both papers, this confrontation involves a complex negotiation with
specialists over issues of legitimacy and credibility - experts who are
removed from the patient's experiences yet authorized to speak about the
patient's pain. What are the factors, therefore, that authorize
experts, laypersons, and society-at-large to recognize, validate, and
manage pain? What are the problems in creating and legitimating these
patient identities?
Citation
Jeff Reznick, “FYI - FW: CONF: Problem of Pain, June 7-8,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/219054.
