Advertisement

Medicalized Screens from the Cold War to the Social Web

  • Kirsten OstherrEmail author
Chapter
  • 187 Downloads

Abstract

The discovery of x-rays in the late nineteenth century made visual analysis of medicalized screens central to the practice of medicine. Until recently, however, medicine’s visual culture was defined by two distinct and separate types of screens: clinical-facing screens, displaying images to doctors, and consumer-facing screens, displaying images to the general public. The explosion of digital health technologies in the early twenty-first century has challenged this division, as well as the underlying premise that the content on these screens should be segmented according to audience, with access to clinical screens restricted to credentialed medical professionals. By opening up access to formerly closed sources of information, the social web has become a dynamic force in the convergence of clinical- and consumer-facing screens. In twenty-first century telehealth applications and entertainment television, screen-based media emphasize the aesthetic of realism to accomplish their effects through multi-platform, transmedia storytelling. By examining how the concept of objectivity functions across clinical and non-clinical spaces, this essay will explain how the evolution of medicalized screens since the middle of the twentieth century has transformed the production of medical knowledge and redefined the role of technology in popular representations of healthcare. Through an archaeology of medical media from the mid-twentieth century to the present, the essay will show that the source of medical realism and objectivity has shifted from the hospital setting to the screen itself, thereby reducing the human dimensions of the patient to digital signals and decontextualized data points.

References

  1. Allen, R. 1985. Speaking of soap operas. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Medical Association. 2011. American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics. Opinion 9.124 – Professionalism in the use of social media. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion9124.page?
  3. Andrejevic, M. 2004. Reality TV: The work of being watched. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Press.Google Scholar
  4. Belluck, P. 2009. Webcast your brain surgery? Hospitals see marketing tool. New York Times online. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/health/25hospital.html?scp=2&sq=awake%20craniotomy&st=cse.
  5. Boyd, D., and K. Crawford. 2012. Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication, & Society 15 (5): 662–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownlee, S. 2008. Overtreated: Why too much medicine is making us sicker and poorer. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  7. Caulfield, M., et al. 2014. Ambiguity tolerance of students matriculating to U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine 89 (11): 1526–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christenson, P., and M. Ivancin. 2006. The “reality” of health: Reality television and the public health. Menlo Park: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, A., et al., eds. 2010. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, health and illness in the U.S. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crary, J. 1992. Techniques of the observer: On vision and modernity in the nineteenth century. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
  11. Curtin, M. 1995. Redeeming the wasteland: Television documentary and cold war politics. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Daston, L., and P. Galison. 1992. The image of objectivity. Representations 40: 81–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diem, S.J., J.D. Lantos, and J.A. Tulsky. 1996. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation on television: Miracles and misinformation. New England Journal of Medicine 334: 1578–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doctor on Demand. 2015. Doctor on demand home page. Available at: http://www.doctorondemand.com/the-doctors/.
  15. Dumit, J. 2003. Picturing personhood: Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Heussner, K.M. 2008. Who’s keeping you in line online? ABC News website. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6020149#.T6wwML_sxAs.
  17. Howell, J. 1995. Technology in the hospital: Transforming patient care in the early twentieth century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jenkins, H. 2008. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lerner, B. 1992. The perils of ‘x-ray vision’: How radiographic images have historically influenced perception. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 35 (3): 382–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levine, L.W. 1988. Highbrow/lowbrow: The emergence of cultural hierarchy in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, E. 1995. Flexible bodies: The role of immunity in American culture from polio to AIDS. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  22. McLuhan, Marshall. [1964] 1994. Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
  23. McNeil, A. 1996. Total television. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  24. Mittell, J. 2004. Genre and television: From cop shows to cartoons in American culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Murphy, S.T., H.J. Hether, and Rideout, V. 2008. How healthy is prime time? An analysis of health content in popular prime time television programs. A Kaiser family foundation report. Available at: http://kff.org/other/report/how-healthy-is-prime-time-an-analysis-of-health-content-in-popular-prime-time-television-programs/.
  26. Ostherr, K. 2013. Medical visions: Producing the patient through film, television, and imaging technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Persch, J.A. 2009. ‘House’ effect: TV Doc has real impact on care. NBC News Website. Available at http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32745079/ns/health-health_care/t/house-effect-tv-doc-has-real-impact-care/.
  28. Pribble, J.A., K.M. Goldstein, E.F. Fowler, M.J. Greenberg, S.K. Noel, and J.D. Howell. 2006. Medical news for the public to use? What’s on local TV news. American Journal of Managed Care 12: 170–176.Google Scholar
  29. Ramey, J.W. 1965. Television in medical teaching and research (A survey and annotated bibliography). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  30. Raphael, C. 2008. The political economic origins of reali-TV. In Reality TV: Remaking television culture, 2nd ed., ed. S. Murray and L. Ouellette, 123–140. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Reiser, S.J. 1978. Medicine and the reign of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2009. Technological medicine: The changing world of doctors and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Seale, C. 2002. Media and health. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Serlin, D. 2010. Performing live surgery on television and the internet since 1945. In Imagining illness: Public health and visual culture, ed. D. Serlin, 223–244. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Society for Participatory Medicine. 2015. e-patients.net blog home page. Available at http://e-patients.net.
  36. Spigel, L. 2008. TV by design: Modern art and the rise of network television. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Startup Health. 2015. Annual report 2015: The year digital health hit its stride. Available at: http://www.startuphealth.com/content/insights-2015.
  38. Topol, E. 2012. The creative destruction of medicine: How the digital revolution will create better healthcare. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Tryon, C. 2009. Reinventing cinema: Movies in the age of media convergence. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Turow, J. 1989. Playing doctor: Television, storytelling, and medical power. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wicclair, M.R. 2008. Medical paternalism in House, MD. Medical Humanities 34: 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zickuhr, K., and A. Smith 2012. Digital differences. Pew internet and American life project report. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences/Overview.aspx.

Media

  1. 60 Minutes. Creat. Hewitt D. CBS News Productions; CBS Productions. 1968–.Google Scholar
  2. Ben Casey. Creat. Moser J.E. Bing Crosby Productions. 1961–1966.Google Scholar
  3. Big Brother. Creat. de Mol J. CBS. 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Boston Med. Prod. Bednar R and Wrong T. ABC News. 2012.Google Scholar
  5. CSI. Prod. Zuiker AE. CBS Productions. 2000. Hopkins 24/7. ABC News. 2000.Google Scholar
  6. The Doctors. Creat. McGraw P. Stage 29 Productions. 2008–,Google Scholar
  7. Dr. Kildare. Komack J. Arena Productions; MGM Television. 1961–1966.Google Scholar
  8. Hopkins. Bednar R and Wrong T. ABC News. 2008.Google Scholar
  9. Hopkins 24/7. ABC News. 2000. New York.Google Scholar
  10. House M.D. Creat. Shore D. Fox. 2004–2012.Google Scholar
  11. Houston Medical. Greengrass Productions. 2002. Google Scholar
  12. Medic. Creat. Moser J.E. Medic Productions. 1954–1956.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations