scholarly journals A Comparison of Public Perceptions of Physicians and Veterinarians in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
April A. Kedrowicz ◽  
Kenneth D. Royal

Veterinary medicine consists of virtually the same medical specialties as human medicine, with veterinarians performing similar roles as medical doctors, albeit with different species. Despite these similarities, anecdotally, some perceptions of veterinarians as not “real doctors” persist. The purpose of this study was to explore and compare public perceptions of physicians and veterinarians. Participants were provided brief definitions of a physician and a veterinarian and then asked to provide a rating that best describes their perception with respect to 25 different personality characteristics/traits. A sample of 606 participants (unweighted) in the United States completed the survey. The results of this research show that the public tends to perceive veterinarians more favorably than physicians. More specifically, veterinarians were viewed as more approachable, sensitive, sympathetic, patient and understanding, while physicians were viewed as more proud, arrogant and overconfident. These results point to the favorable public perceptions of veterinarians. These findings are particularly relevant for veterinary educators who train the future workforce and have a significant role both in how the profession is portrayed and emphasizing the relationship between the public trust and social responsibility. Reinforcing the public’s strong trust in the veterinary profession throughout students’ education could enhance their own self-concept, self-esteem and overall mental health and well-being.

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 689-705
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jane Hardes

During the late 18th to late 19th centuries, practices of duelling and prize fighting were criminalized in Britain, while boxing remained legal. Through a genealogical method, this article locates discourses, primarily law, medicine, policing and science, to trace these mechanisms of criminalization and legalization. Focusing on the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and the United States, I argue that the legalization of boxing did not simply emerge as a part of a ‘civilizing process’. Rather, I explain these processes of criminalization and legalization in the context of biopolitical rationalities of governance. In contrast to its contemporaries, boxing was rationalized as a scientific ‘sport’ that fitted with wider biopolitical visions of public health and well-being: allegedly it did not breed violence or threaten the public peace but was instead practised by skilled technicians. However, the biopolitical management of human life within rational and scientific form comes at a price: life’s ontological need for expression, and the drive to experience and witness boxing’s corporeal excesses remains a ghostly presence threatening to undo the sweet ‘science’.


2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Hendrix

Article examines the economic, environmental, social, and political factors involved in the closing of Auberry Elementary School in the Sierra Nevada foothills of Fresno County after the 2010–2011 school year. The closing of the school serves as a window onto the shifting landscape of the relationship between the private sector and the public good not only in Auberry but throughout California and the United States.


Author(s):  
Sydne DiGiacomo ◽  
Mohammad-Ali Jazayeri ◽  
Rajat Barua ◽  
John Ambrose

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and its sequelae are among the largest economic and healthcare burdens in the United States and worldwide. The relationship between active smoking and atherosclerosis is well-described in the literature. However, the specific mechanisms by which ETS influences atherosclerosis are incompletely understood. In this paper, we highlight the definition and chemical constituents of ETS, review the existing literature outlining the effects of ETS on atherogenesis and thrombosis in both animal and human models, and briefly outline the public health implications of ETS based on these data.


Author(s):  
Valeria Marina Valle ◽  
Caroline Irene Deschak ◽  
Vanessa Sandoval-Romero

International migration flows have long been a defining feature of the Americas and have evolved alongside political and phenomenological shifts between 2009 and 2018, creating new patterns in how, when, and why people move. Migration is a determinant of health, and for the nations involved, regional changes create new challenges to defend the universal right to health for migrants. This right is repeatedly guaranteed within the global agenda, such as in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations; the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; and the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 3 regarding health and well-being, and SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequalities within and among countries. The 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration confirms a worldwide partnership highlighting protection of migrants’ right to health and services. The literature reviewed on migration and health in the Americas between 2009 and 2018 identifies two distinct publication periods with different characteristics in the Central and North American subregions: 2009 to 2014, and 2015 to 2018. The first period is characterized by an influx of young adult migrants from Central America to the United States who generally traveled alone. During the second period, the migration flow includes other major groups, such as unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, disabled people, people from the LGBTIQ+ community, and whole families; some Central Americans drew international attention for migrating in large groups known as “caravans.” In South America, the 2010–2015 period shows three defining tendencies: intensification of intra-regional cross-border migration (with an 11% increase in South American migrants from 2010 to 2015 and approximately 70% of intra-subregional migration), diversification of countries of origin and extra-regional destination, and the persistence of extra-continental emigration. Social determinants of health have a foundational relevance to health and well-being for migrants, such as age, housing, health access, education, and policy environment. Guiding theories on migration and health include Push-and-Pull Theory, Globalization Theory, Transnationalism, Relational Cultural Theory, and Theory of Assimilation. Migration and health was analyzed through the lens of five disciplines (Management, Social Work, Communication, Education, Information Science & Library Science, Law): clinical medicine, social sciences, health (general), professional fields, and psychology. There is an overrepresentation of literature in clinical medicine, demonstrating a strong bias towards production in the United States. Another gap perceived in the literature is the minimal knowledge production in South America and the Caribbean, and a clear bias towards publication in the North American continent. At the regional level, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)’s agenda serves to highlight areas of success and opportunities for future research, particularly in two areas: strengthening partnerships, networks, and multi-country frameworks; and adopting policies, programs, and legal frameworks to promote and protect the health of migrants. As these strategic lines of action aim to provide the basis for decisions regarding migrant health in the region, they should be considered two important avenues for further academic exploration.


2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 1281-1303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Norrlöf

Abstract COVID-19 is the most invasive global crisis in the postwar era, jeopardizing all dimensions of human activity. By theorizing COVID-19 as a public bad, I shed light on one of the great debates of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries regarding the relationship between the United States and liberal international order (LIO). Conceptualizing the pandemic as a public bad, I analyze its consequences for US hegemony. Unlike other international public bads and many of the most important public goods that make up the LIO, the COVID-19 public bad not only has some degree of rivalry but can be made partially excludable, transforming it into more of a club good. Domestically, I demonstrate how the failure to effectively manage the COVID-19 public bad has compromised America's ability to secure the health of its citizens and the domestic economy, the very foundations for its international leadership. These failures jeopardize US provision of other global public goods. Internationally, I show how the US has already used the crisis strategically to reinforce its opposition to free international movement while abandoning the primary international institution tasked with fighting the public bad, the World Health Organization (WHO). While the only area where the United States has exercised leadership is in the monetary sphere, I argue this feat is more consequential for maintaining hegemony. However, even monetary hegemony could be at risk if the pandemic continues to be mismanaged.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document