Medicalization is a powerful social, cultural, economic and clinical force that has been studied in many contexts around the world. This paper focuses upon medicalization in Arab/Middle Eastern culture, looking specifically at the increased application of biomedical thinking and medical care within Arab nations. Two examples of medicalization are discussed. The first is consanguineous marriage, which is widely practised in Arab societies. It serves to illustrate how marriage systems and reproductive choices can change when information concerning the risk of birth defects is introduced. The second example is infantile diarrhoea, a major cause of infant mortality in developing countries. It shows that popular methods of healing may be called into question with the introduction of newer medical knowledge and progressive standards of medical practice. These two examples indicate how medicalization can change personal identities and call into question traditional values concerning marriage, reproduction and healing. Also discussed are modernization and the concept of health care as a vehicle for social justice. The WHO’s 1978 ‘Health for All’ initiative is also explored in the context of health disparities and health as a human right.
Current cases of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) worldwide are estimated to be in the tens of millions. If this estimate is valid, PTSD is the world’s second most common mental disorder. PTSD is associated with severe distress, high levels of chronicity, co-morbidity and disability, and significant economic (productivity) consequences. Very high prevalence rates of PTSD are reported for post-conflict countries for example, 37% for Algeria’s general population and 28% in Cambodia. Still higher rates of PTSD are reported in Western Europe, North America and Australia for people claiming refugee status. These epidemiological findings are recent developments, for PTSD only entered the psychiatric nosology in 1980. Since then, the character of PTSD has been further defined to include subvarieties, notably, ‘partial PTSD’, ‘vicarious PTSD’ and ‘collective trauma’. PTSD has also attracted the attention of several critics, who have questioned its underlying epistemology and actual clinical significance. In this paper, I review these various claims and critiques. I approach PTSD from three perspectives: human memory (the ‘motor’ that is said to drive The PTSD syndrome), social relations (PTSD comprises a language of entitlement as well as a disorder) and history (not only the history of PTSD, but PTSD as a medium for composing history).