I consider that all approaches should be considered and mutually dependent. All approaches are important in the sense that they are necessary in totality. But I think one of the most approaches is the biological approach, which also seems to incorporate the most significant factors. These factors include environment, genetics, and individual choices that are in important in considering medicine. Incorporating predisposition and risk factors are advantageous when considering patient differential diagnosis.
I think when speaking amongst friends and everyday, society tends to use disease and illness arbitrarily, as do I. Upon further analysis, I can see a distinction can be made but without certainty. Illness can be defined as a state of feeling ill, as when someone is exhibiting of feeling symptoms. Disease is more like a diagnosable condition, and can be considered both acute and chronic, depending on the respective disease.
The connection I made from the Narcimera to American culture may be a stretch, but associate it with a more ritualistic and spiritualistic approach in America. I think a medical approach won’t work unless the patient believes in the practice, believes in the doctor, and believes that the medications themselves will work. Miner even states that some of the Narcimera people are afraid of many of the rituals, like we are of the white coat or needles. In a more direct sense, since the ritual is specified to the mouth, I related it more the dentistry and our need to visit frequently. Although no matter how much we brush or take care of ourselves, the dentist still manages to find cavities. Another direct example would be dentures, and the removal of teeth to put in “supernatural” or dentures to replace the new teeth.
Another example would be the “secret language” the holy men used, which I could relate to doctors who use medical terminology to explain simple symptoms for the sake of credibility and accuracy (ex. Epistaxis=nose bleed).