Medicalization and women : O, the Oprah Magazine diagnosed through critical discourse analysis

This thesis uses critical discourse analysis (COAl to explore and examine direct-toconsumer (OTC) pharmaceutical drug advertisements appearing in four issues of 0, The Oprah Magazine in 2006. The theoretical underpinnings of this thesis emerge from social scientists and feminists analyses regarding the medicalization of everyday life. The findings of this study highlight three types of discourses used by pharmaceutical companies. First, I explore the use of historical and contemporary gender norms to seJi pharmacological products; second, J examine discourses which normalize the use of chemical solutions as the first line of defense to address a wide range of everyday problems; and finally, I assess how phannaceutical advertisements provide an illusion of autonomy by responsibilizing individuals as patients, at the same time as they suggest that real independence can only be achieved with medication. My discussion of these themes also includes an analysis of why 0 Magazine, which explicitly promotes women's empowerment through holistic approaches to health and personal growthmight support such advertising. Thus I explore: how does OTC advertising benefit both pharmaceutical companies and 0 Magazine itself? I conclude through a brief discussion of the larger implications of OTC advertising for women's health.

A Psychosocial Approach to Understanding Causality Assessment in Early Phase Oncology Clinical Trials: A Phenomenological Study

Research Question: What are the psychosocial factors that affect causality assessment in early phase oncology clinical trials? Methods: Thirty-two qualitative interviews were explicated with the aid of “Naturalistic Decision Making”. Data explication consisted of phenomenological reduction, delineating and clustering meaning units, forming themes, and creating a composite summary. Participants were members of the National Cancer Institute of Canada’s Clinical Trial Group Investigative New Drug committee. Results: The process of assigning causality is extremely subjective and full of uncertainty. Physicians had no formal training, nor a tool to assist them with this process. Physicians were apprehensive about their decisions and felt pressure from their patients, as well as the pharmaceutical companies sponsoring the trial. Conclusions: There are many problem areas when attributing causality, all of which have serious consequences, but clinicians used a variety of methods to cope with these problem areas.