something about "The Birth of the Clinic" by Michel Foucault

In The Birth of the Clinic, Michel Foucault mines late 18th and early 19th century changes in medical practice (this, significantly, is around the time of the American and French Revolutions, following on the heels of the Enlightenment). These changes shaped modern medicine.

The discourse on human rights inspired by these revolutions led to an overall concern with society and health; and the move toward egalitarianism pushed physicians (and teaching physicians) out of the the aristocracy and reassigned them to general society.

The new imaginings of hard science dictated that we let truths reveal themselves to us. In The Birth of the Clinic, Foucault feels out what he calls the medical gaze--a way of seeing in which the physician allows the disease to reveal its own truth. The human body gives off signs, and the physician uses his knowledge and observations of the body to translate the reality of the disease.

The physician talks to the patient, observes him, examines him, orders tests and whatnot. Mysticism is abandoned for a discussion of the body; the physician relies less on bookish medical wisdom and instead reads the body. The physician's eye sees in space symptoms and physical signs.

The physician’s observations affect the gaze; the gaze affects the physician. Doctors systematically describe diseases using medical jargon. The physician's power is now his experience rather than his status. The gaze has scientific credibility. And we've successfully achieved truth in spite of the doctor's status, not because of it. (So we think.)

The Casey Anthony trial and the desire to punish

The Casey Anthony trial attracted major media attention. In the NPR piece, New Republic: Beyond Whose Reasonable Doubt?, University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos discusses belief in the system and how high profile trials like Anthony's figure into that belief. He says that we must decide what constitutes reasonable doubt and render judgment while adhering to the belief that "mistaken acquittals are vastly preferable to wrongful convictions". The price of this jurisprudence of prudent judgement, however, may lead to "deeply disturbing" verdicts, as in the Anthony case, where the defendant likely "has gotten away with murder", thereby challenging our belief in the system. He's counseling us. And with good reason.

Indeed, I think one function of high-profile trials such as this is to show that the system "works". The media inadvertently and advertently promotes the status quo, which requires a measure of belief in the judicial system. So, the pundits screamed when the verdict was read because they think the system should have rendered a guilty verdict. That an injustice has been done may be one reason for the vigor and volume of their response, but I would suggest another reason is at play here, too.

Casey Anthony's behavior defies our expectations of what young mothers are supposed to look like and act like. Pundits wanted to punish the mother not so much for killing her child as for the way she behaved after the death. What constituted evidence also constituted her crimes: Getting the tattoo and going to night clubs.

The concept of a mother who does not cherish her child challenges the ideal of the self-policing individual and the centralized interest in the protection and regulation of life. Media figures apparently salivated in agreement at the prospect of punishing Anthony, building a consensus among the public that the young woman was guilty and deserved punishment.