RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      Epidemics, Public Health, and the State: A Comparative Study of Britain and the United States.

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T13397691

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 9시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      In this research I compare how the governments of Britain and the United States responded to outbreaks of disease in the 19th and early 20th century and how their distinct responses shaped the development of their public health systems. I then use this historical research to understand their contemporary disease control styles.
      I examine three questions. First, I explore why, even though Britain and the United States both experienced devastating epidemics throughout the 19th century, Britain began to form a comprehensive public health response to these outbreaks in the first part of the century, but the United States did not take such actions until near the end of the century. Using the concept of an epidemic response public health formation cycle, I explain this difference by (1) the degree of state centralization, (2) the availability to the state of a coherent medical theory of disease, and (3) the degree to which the state imagined its populace as a "social body.".
      Second, I examine why the British and American state developed distinct systems of public health. Britain developed a sanitary approach to disease control and saw epidemics as part of larger social problems, like poverty and overcrowding. In contrast, the United States emphasized the use of quarantine and saw the response to epidemics more simply as a medical-technical problem. I argue that these different epidemic styles are primarily shaped by (1) when each state started to form its public health system and the medical theory of disease that was available to Britain (the miasmatic theory of disease) and the United States (the germ theory of disease) at that time, (2) the organizational location of each state's public health system, and (3) who each country focused their disease control efforts on.
      Finally, I use this historical research to understand the response of Britain and the United States to AIDS in the 20th century and their responses to the current 21st century disease threats of SARS and influenza A H5N1 (avian flu) and A H1N1 (swine flu). I argue that Britain and America's different state responses to these diseases are based in their unique historical experience with epidemics.
      번역하기

      In this research I compare how the governments of Britain and the United States responded to outbreaks of disease in the 19th and early 20th century and how their distinct responses shaped the development of their public health systems. I then use th...

      In this research I compare how the governments of Britain and the United States responded to outbreaks of disease in the 19th and early 20th century and how their distinct responses shaped the development of their public health systems. I then use this historical research to understand their contemporary disease control styles.
      I examine three questions. First, I explore why, even though Britain and the United States both experienced devastating epidemics throughout the 19th century, Britain began to form a comprehensive public health response to these outbreaks in the first part of the century, but the United States did not take such actions until near the end of the century. Using the concept of an epidemic response public health formation cycle, I explain this difference by (1) the degree of state centralization, (2) the availability to the state of a coherent medical theory of disease, and (3) the degree to which the state imagined its populace as a "social body.".
      Second, I examine why the British and American state developed distinct systems of public health. Britain developed a sanitary approach to disease control and saw epidemics as part of larger social problems, like poverty and overcrowding. In contrast, the United States emphasized the use of quarantine and saw the response to epidemics more simply as a medical-technical problem. I argue that these different epidemic styles are primarily shaped by (1) when each state started to form its public health system and the medical theory of disease that was available to Britain (the miasmatic theory of disease) and the United States (the germ theory of disease) at that time, (2) the organizational location of each state's public health system, and (3) who each country focused their disease control efforts on.
      Finally, I use this historical research to understand the response of Britain and the United States to AIDS in the 20th century and their responses to the current 21st century disease threats of SARS and influenza A H5N1 (avian flu) and A H1N1 (swine flu). I argue that Britain and America's different state responses to these diseases are based in their unique historical experience with epidemics.

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼