Political Economy on Discourse Conflicts over Medical Reform of Conventional Medicine, Traditional Thai Medicine, and Alternative Medicine

Abstract

             This qualitative research employed two methods of inquiry namely: methodology of political economy and critical discourse analysis (CDA). The analysis of conflicts was based on a text derived from units of discourse based on power. This is to indicate information related to political ideology in each branch of medicine which was dominated, pressed, pushed; and concepts of the art of doctor. Each context of doctors’ expressions on treatment of diseases led to conflicts in discourse practice which was revised through in-depth interview data, and participant observation. The analysis of core practice was done to identify social changes. Results showed that conventional medicine employed discourse practices in order to establish power to their own party. Their medical reform can be classified into 5 categories: 1) establishment of power through scientific system, 2) selection of experts through education institutions, 3) reforming bureaucratic system, 4) development of medical technology, and 5) legislation. All these influenced the way Thai people think across the board as well as other aspects in cultural contexts where part of law issued in B.E. 2466 was suppressed until ministry regulation issued in B.E. 2556. The reform was used as basis and a tool to gain power and command of conventional doctors to explain theories scientifically, government system and mechanism, legislate to govern discourse practice in their own organization that may lead to conflicts. The discourse practices of Thai traditional medicine are against conventional medicine in six ways: 1) using historical arguments, 2) examination of traditional Thai medicine, 3) establishment of education system, 4) selection of experts in line with bureaucratic system, 5) Innovation of Thai medicine, and 6) legislation of traditional Thai medicine. These six aspects led to arguments by those who favor alternative medicine against the conventional one as shown in discourse practice, namely through 1) opposing scientific nature of conventional medicine, 2) development of new body of knowledge on alternative medicine holistically, 3) discourse practice through creation of health innovation, 4)  discourse practice through government, and 5) establishment of righteousness through law practice that enable it to link with morality and separation of discourse practice according to texts to establish trust that results in quality of products which is medicine. The medicine comes in the form of supplement and the balance system of heat and cool in the body to treat chronic diseases which was proven to be more successful than using the conventional medicine. Consequences of conflicts in discourse practices in medical system led to development of applied traditional Thai medicine to seek approval from the society. This was done through presentation of Thai traditional philosophy and practices. Thus, significant overlapping features in the contexts of social changes in health treatment conflicts to a more advanced level of cultural changes. This qualitative research employed two methods of inquiry namely: methodology of political economy and critical discourse analysis (CDA). The analysis of conflicts was based on a text derived from units of discourse based on power. This is to indicate information related to political ideology in each branch of medicine which was dominated, pressed, pushed; and concepts of the art of doctor. Each context of doctors’ expressions on treatment of diseases led to conflicts in discourse practice which was revised through in-depth interview data, and participant observation. The analysis of core practice was done to identify social changes. Results showed that conventional medicine employed discourse practices in order to establish power to their own party. Their medical reform can be classified into 5 categories: 1) establishment of power through scientific system, 2) selection of experts through education institutions, 3) reforming bureaucratic system, 4) development of medical technology, and 5) legislation. All these influenced the way Thai people think across the board as well as other aspects in cultural contexts where part of law issued in B.E. 2466 was suppressed until ministry regulation issued in B.E. 2556. The reform was used as basis and a tool to gain power and command of conventional doctors to explain theories scientifically, government system and mechanism, legislate to govern discourse practice in their own organization that may lead to conflicts. The discourse practices of Thai traditional medicine are against conventional medicine in six ways: 1) using historical arguments, 2) examination of traditional Thai medicine, 3) establishment of education system, 4) selection of experts in line with bureaucratic system, 5) Innovation of Thai medicine, and 6) legislation of traditional Thai medicine. These six aspects led to arguments by those who favor alternative medicine against the conventional one as shown in discourse practice, namely through 1) opposing scientific nature of conventional medicine, 2) development of new body of knowledge on alternative medicine holistically, 3) discourse practice through creation of health innovation, 4)  discourse practice through government, and 5) establishment of righteousness through law practice that enable it to link with morality and separation of discourse practice according to texts to establish trust that results in quality of products which is medicine. The medicine comes in the form of supplement and the balance system of heat and cool in the body to treat chronic diseases which was proven to be more successful than using the conventional medicine. Consequences of conflicts in discourse practices in medical system led to development of applied traditional Thai medicine to seek approval from the society. This was done through presentation of Thai traditional philosophy and practices. Thus, significant overlapping features in the contexts of social changes in health treatment conflicts to a more advanced level of cultural changes.