Week 6: New Media, Health & Well-Being
Lewis discusses individual diseases; Diabetes (pp. 252), Hepatitis C (pp. 535) and Breast Cancer (pp. 526), as well as on a whole (pp. 521 - 539). She attempts to reach a conclusion, which iterated throughout the section, it’s either good to self diagnose via the internet, or bad. It should either work, or it shouldn’t. It will be the future, or it won’t. It’s an unwise attempt to conclude with certainty when two options are in play. It’s my opinion that it will be easier, and indeed recommended for some patients to self diagnose on the internet, and it will be severely warned for others not to.
This can be linked back to our media life week, where separation between media and persons was hard to define, and harder to construct within individuals. Kate said “our escape (from media) is impossible” on her blog. This is also inevitable for medicinal websites, and self diagnosing via this media. There will be no escape from it, it’s here to stay as long as the internet is.
“More than any other media form, the internet offers the possibility of accessing highly specific, personalized and often specialized knowledge about health issues” (Lewis, pp 536).
While it’s true, the internet is vast and specific, a doctors consultation is a media form, true. Comparing the internet to a private consultation with a GP in terms of “highly specific, personalized (sic) and often specialized (sic) knowledge” is incorrect. Consolations with doctors is the most personal and professional response to sickness compared to any medium, and as Knope discusses, it’s often the best solution:
Reference: Lewis, T. (2006). Seeking health information on the internet: lifestyle choice or bad attack of cyberchondria? Media, Culture & Society, volume 28, issue 4: 521-539.














