Introduction
One of the bleak realities of human existence is that our bodies are susceptible to illnesses. Illnesses result in reduced capabilities for the individual and may even cause death. Luckily, huge advancements have been made in the health care industry and most illnesses can be cured fairly easily. However, there exists a class of diseases that cannot be cured; chronic illnesses. Lubkin and Larsen (2006, p. 4) define a chronic illness as “one that continues indefinitely”. The endless nature of chronic illnesses means that there is no hope of recovery for the patient. Research indicates that approximately 20% of the Australian population has chronic illness or disabilities of some type (McMurray, 2003, p. 233). This number is projected to rise even further as the population of the country ages. As such, the manner in which society treats and reacts to someone with a chronic illness will be of great significance. This paper will set out to document how society treats and reacts to someone with a chronic illness. The reasons for the various reactions will be outlined so as to shed light to the reality that people with chronic illness face.
How Society Reacts to Chronic Illness
Society reacts in a number of typical ways to the chronically ill. A common reaction is viewing them with pity. This reaction leads to generous acts and the sick are treated with sympathy and some measure of kindness by even strangers (Chamberlain-Webber, 2004). While these outcomes of pity may seem desirable, this charitable view of the chronically ill is mostly detrimental to their well being in the society. To begin with, pity impedes on social inclusion. Here social inclusion refers to “effective participation, both socially and economically by an individual in all aspects of society” (Newman et al. 2007, p.13). The pity mindset is against inclusion since it portrays these people as lesser members of the society who are in need of the help of the non-ill people.
A common reaction to people with chronic illness is that they are drug addicts. This assumption stems from the fact that chronic pain is one of the major characteristics of chronic illness (Lubkin & Larsen, 2002). The chronically ill person is therefore doomed to live with constant pain and to alleviate this; most of them use long-term pain relief.
Members of the family to the chronically ill may experience resentment towards the ill family member. This resentment may come from the fact that the family is the primary unpaid worker for the chronically ill individual (Wright & Leahey, 2000). Since some chronic illnesses led to decreased functional capabilities which make the ill person a burden to others, the members of the family may therefore harbor negative feelings towards the ill for they are emotionally and financially draining. This resentment grows even deeper as the sickness progresses leading to even further deterioration of the physical capability of the person.
The society treats chronically ill people as less productive members of the society. This treatment comes from the fact that most chronic illnesses limit the capacity of the individual. A research by Kessler et al. (2001) revealed that the chronically ill tend to take more sick leave than their colleagues. This reduction in work hours is attributed to the fatigue associated with chronic disease as well as the high prevalence of sicknesses that these people seem to have.
Society also tends to exclude the chronically ill from community activities such as games, theatre and parades to name but a few. Social exclusion is the process of being shut out from some of the aspects of community life. This exclusion arises from the view of the ill as disabled. This process is detrimental to the individual since it can result in disengagement from education and employment by the chronically ill person. This will lead to even further alienation from the community.
Society also reaction to the ill by allocating blame to them. Blame is an attitudinal problem and the ill person is blamed for the physical, psychological, and social outcomes of their condition. As a result of this, the ill may be left to tend to themselves or given less assistance than is adequate for them to manage in their every day activities.
Reasons for Reactions
The reason why people react with pity to the chronically ill is because some chronic illnesses cause someone to be weak or even physically disabled. Society therefore regards the person as in need of help from the able-bodied individuals. While this treatment has its merits in that it results in the sick person being given assistance such as having their wheelchairs pushed and being given priority in banking halls, pity inhibits inclusion since it emphasizes on the difference between the chronically ill and the non-ill. The sick are therefore regarded as lesser members of the society. Inclusion emphasizes the valuing of differences in each other by recognizing that every person makes an important contributing to the society (Chamberlain-Webber, 2004).
The reason for the chronically ill being regarded as drug addicts is because of a commonly held myth that people who use opioid analgesics for pain management become addicts. The typical drug addict is deemed as dependent on their drugs for survival. Since the chronically ill have to use drugs to manage their pain, society ends up stigmatizing them since they are categorized as typical drug abusers.
Resentment against the ill arises from the fact that chronic illness has a net effect on all the people who surround the sick person. Wright and Leahey (2002) go on to assert that while a chronic illness may affect only one member of the family, the changes affect all the other family members. Since it is the family members who have to cater for the physical and emotional needs of the sick, they may end up hating the person for the demands that he places on them.
Our society idealizes a certain body image and any person who deviates from this is seen as imperfect. Lubkin and Larsen (2002) reveals that one of the impacts of chronic illness is that it assaults the body therefore making it loss some of its previous properties. For example, arthritis can cause one to loss their gait while cancer treatments can make one loss their hair. The chronically person’s negative image will therefore be perceived as unattractive by the society.
Chronically ill people exhibit some antisocial behavior such as angry outbursts and withdrawal from the society. Onega and Larsen (2002) state that this behaviors are mostly as a result of the powerlessness that comes from the patient knowing that they cannot do anything about their chronic illness. However, the society does not consider these underlying causes for the anger and hermit behavior by the ill person. People therefore tend to keep away from the chronically ill so as to avoid being victims of their anger. Others stay away since the ill person appears to enjoy being left to their own company.
The blame that is placed upon the chronically ill for their conditions arises from the fact that some chronic conditions such as: kidney disease, diabetes and cardiovascular disease are lifestyle related. These illnesses are mostly prevalent in people who consume excessive alcohol, smoke or engage in unhealthy eating habits. Being chronically ill is therefore taken to mean that the individual is irresponsible and indulgent. For this reason, the ill person is blamed for the chronic condition which is seen as his sole fault.
The unfavorable treatment that chronically ill people face is as a result of the attitude adopted by the society. Retish and Raiter (1999, p.131) describe an attitude as “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorably or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object”. The manner in which one behaves towards an object is a factor of their attitude towards the same. Attitudes towards the chronically ill significantly influence the treatment they receive from the society. A negative attitude results to stereotyping of the ill rather than regarding them as individuals. As such, negative feelings about chronically illness results in an attitudinal barrier.
As has been indicated, most chronic illnesses inflict the older segment of out population. This factor contributes to the negative attitude adopted by most people towards the ill since as Courtney, Tong and Walsh (2001, p.1) reveal, society perceives older people are “problems requiring considerable attention and resources”. Research has attributed increases in our health care costs to the increase in the aged population. The ill are therefore seen as a liability to the society since they require considerable amount of care and resources.
Discussion
As has been noted, most of the negative reaction that the chronically ill receive is as a result of ignorance by the society. These reactions have an impact on the well being of the ill person. As a result of the blame, resentment and exclusion, the chronically ill are more susceptible to being depressed. This depression is associated with a number of somatic disabilities including cardiovascular diseases (Herva, et al. 2006). As such, depression also results in increased mortality and morbidity leading to a decrease in the quality of life for the individual.
The negative reactions towards the chronically ill are mostly due to ignorance. This ignorance can only be countered by education which will raise awareness about the chronic illness. McCahon and Larsen (2002), state that by educating the person’s family about the chronic illness, better management methods can be undertaken and the negative impacts reduced.
Conclusion
This paper set out to discuss the manner in which society reacts and treats someone with a chronic illness. To this end, the paper has discovered that most of the reactions that the chronically ill receive are negative. These reactions include: blame, resentment, exclusion and pity. The reasons for these reactions have mostly been attributed to the ignorance that the society has concerning chronic illnesses. Most of the chronically ill are productive members of society and live successfully within community-based residences. By getting rid of the negative reactions, the quality of life for the chronically ill as well as their productivity in society can be increased. This will benefit the entire society.
References
Chamberlain-Webber, J. (2004). Tackling Chronic Disease. Professional Nurse, (20)4, 14–18.
Courtney, M., Tong, S., & Walsh, A. (2001). Acute Care Nurses’ Attitudes toward Older Patients: A Literature Review. Web.
Herva, A. et al. (2006). Obesity and Depression: Results from the Longitudinal Northern Finland 1966 Birth Cohort Study. International Journal of Obesity, (30), 520–527.
Kessler, R. et al. (2001). The effects of chronic medical conditions on work loss and work cutback. J Occup Environ Med, (43), 218–225.
Lubkin,M., & Larsen, P.D. (2002). Chronic Illness Impact and Interventions. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
McCahon, C.P., & Larsen, P.D. (2002). ‘Client and family education’, in Chronic Illness: Impact and Interventions. I.M. Lubkin & P.D. Larsen (Eds.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
McMurray, A. (2003). Community Health and Wellness: A Socio ecological Approach. Sydney: Mosby.
Newman, L., Biedrzycki, K., Patterson, J., & Baum, F. (2007). A Rapid Appraisal Case Study of South Australia’s Social Inclusion Initiative. Report prepared for the Social Exclusion Knowledge Network of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health.
Onega, L.L., & Larsen, P.D. (2002). ‘Powerlessness’, in Chronic Illness: Impact and Interventions. I.M. Lubkin& P.D. Larsen (Eds.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
Retish, P., & Raiter, S. (1999). Adults with disabilities: international perspectives in the community. New York: Routledge.
Wright, L.M., & Leahey, M. (2000). Nurses and Families: A Guide to Family Assessment and Intervention. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.