No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Convivial Populations: Ivan Illich and Public Health in the 21st Century
Abstract
Ivan Illich (1926–2002) was a historian, social critic, and professor at multiple universities. He came to intellectual fame through his criticisms of modern institutions, including health care, and his concern with social structures that he believed to impede human flourishing. However, Illich has not been thoroughly explored as a source of insight for public health professionals. Although he populates the medical and public health literature, discourse remains sparse about how Illich might contribute to key conversations in public health today. In this article, I explore Illich’s potential contributions to modern public health through one of his seminal works, Tools for Conviviality. I frame Illich as a valuable conversational partner for public health professionals at a crucial moment in the field’s history. ( Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 9, 2024:e1–e6. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307675 )
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
This essay reviews more than forty years of public opinion polling to look at trust in medicine, the health system, and public health. We use polling data to explore the reasons for the decline and current level of public trust in leaders of medicine and public health, including underlying forces such as the decline in trust in other institutions. Except for the military, none of the efforts to improve public trust in various institutions have been very successful to date. Given the uncertainty about how to restore trust, this essay makes a number of recommendations that might improve public trust in medicine and public health in the future.
Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethical, scientific, practical, legal and political debate, there has been limited evaluation of their potential unintended consequences. Here, we outline a comprehensive set of hypotheses for why these policies may ultimately be counterproductive and harmful. Our framework considers four domains: (1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health. While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good. Restricting people’s access to work, education, public transport and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being. Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunisations. Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions. We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be re-evaluated in light of the negative consequences that we outline. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation, and improving healthcare services and infrastructure, represent a more sustainable approach to optimising COVID-19 vaccination programmes and, more broadly, the health and well-being of the public.
The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted concern about the integrity of the US public health infrastructure. Federal, state, and local governments spend $93 billion annually on public health in the US, but most of this spending is at the state level. Thus, shoring up gaps in public health preparedness and response requires an understanding of state spending. We present state spending trends in eight categories of public health activity from 2008 through 2018. We obtained data from the Census Bureau for all states except California and coded the data by public health category. Although overall national health expenditures grew by 4.3 percent in this period, state governmental public health spending saw no statistically significant growth between 2008 and 2018 except in injury prevention. Moreover, state spending levels on public health were not restored after cuts experienced during the Great Recession, leaving states ill equipped to respond to COVID-19 and other emerging health needs.
As bioethics emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and began to have enormous impacts on the practice of medicine and research – fuelled, by broad socio-political changes that gave rise to the struggle of women, African Americans, gay men and lesbians, and the antiauthoritarian impulse that characterised the New Left in democratic capitalist societies – little attention was given to the question of the ethics of public health. This was all the more striking since the core values and practices of public health, often entailing the subordination of the individual for the common good, seemed opposed to the ideological impulses of bioethics.
Of what relevance is autonomy-focused bioethics for public health, with its mix of justifications including those that are either implicitly or explicitly paternalistic or that seek to impose strictures on individuals and communities in the name of collective welfare? To examine the deep divide between the central commitments of bioethics and the values that animate the practice of public health, we focus on a series of controversies implicating the concepts of privacy, liberty, and paternalism.
Recognising the role of moral values in decision-making was a signal contribution of bioethics in its formative period. Over the past three decades a broad array of perspectives emerged under the rubric of bioethics but individualism remains central. As we commence the process of shaping an ethics of public health, it is clear that bioethics is the wrong place to start when thinking about the balances required in defence of the public's health.
Public health emergency powers laws in the US underwent a profound stress test during the COVID-19 pandemic. Designed with bioterrorism in mind, they struggled to meet the challenges of a multiyear pandemic. Public health legal powers in the US are both too limited, in that they don't clearly permit officials to implement measures necessary to combat epidemics, and too broad, in that their accountability mechanisms fall short of public expectations. Recently, some courts and state legislatures have cut deeply into emergency powers, jeopardizing future emergency response. Instead of this curtailment of essential powers, the states and Congress should modernize emergency powers laws to balance powers and individual rights in more productive ways. In this analysis we propose reforms including meaningful legislative checks on executive power, stronger substantive standards for executive orders, mechanisms for public and legislative input, and clearer authority to issue orders affecting groups of people.
Public health agencies' ability to protect health in the wake of COVID-19 largely depends on public trust. In February 2022 we conducted a first-of-its-kind nationally representative survey of 4,208 US adults to learn the public's reported reasons for trust in federal, state, and local public health agencies. Among respondents who expressed a "great deal" of trust, that trust was not related primarily to agencies' ability to control the spread of COVID-19 but, rather, to beliefs that those agencies made clear, science-based recommendations and provided protective resources. Scientific expertise was a more commonly reported reason for "a great deal" of trust at the federal level, whereas perceptions of hard work, compassionate policy, and direct services were emphasized more at the state and local levels. Although trust in public health agencies was not especially high, few respondents indicated that they had no trust. Lower trust was related primarily to respondents' beliefs that health recommendations were politically influenced and inconsistent. The least trusting respondents also endorsed concerns about private-sector influence and excessive restrictions and had low trust in government overall. Our findings suggest the need to support a robust federal, state, and local public health communications infrastructure; ensure agencies' authority to make science-based recommendations; and develop strategies for engaging different segments of the public.
Ivan Illich's attack on modern medicine, Medical Nemesis, appeared in 1974. The book famously opened with the statement: ‘The medical establishment has become a major threat to health.’ Forty years after its publication, this paper examines the major themes of the book, and asks whether events since its publication have added weight to Illich's thesis.
February 2005 marks the centenary of one of the most important pieces of public health jurisprudence, the US Supreme Court case of Jacobson v Massachusetts, which upheld the authority of states to pass compulsory vaccination laws. The Court’s decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare.
We examined the relationship between the individual and society in 20th-century public health practice and law and the ways that compulsory measures have been used to constrain personal liberty for the sake of protecting the public health. (Am J Public Health.
In the Mirror of the Past
- I Illich
Why using fear to promote COVID-19 vaccination and mask wearing could backfire. The Conversation
- A L Fairchild
- R Bayer
Fauci looks back: "something clearly went wrong
- D Wallace-Wells
- Dr
What happened to Giorgio Agamben? Slate
- A Kotsko
Can public health be saved? New York Times
- J Hamblin