This question raises important issues regarding the health systems in developing and less developed countries. I believe that the quest for health may lack a historical perspective in developing countries but at least the undergraduate public health (community medicine) curriculum (e.g. as approved by the NUC/MDCN in Nigeria's medical schools) has a historical perspective in it. However, one can say that the problem is due to medical students and by extension medical doctors not taking that aspect of the curriculum seriously. And you know that doctors are the leaders of the health team. Thus for health improvement emphasis is more on high tech medicine (e.g. the VAMED project in Nigeria) rather than such historically valuable intervention measures like sanitation, public utilities like good transport system, adeuate energy infratsructure, comfortable housing system as well as effective management of the health servces not just health care. A re-evaluation of the implementation of the medical school curriculum and a re-orientation of the role of the doctor (and other health services providers) in promoting public health are essential antidotes and may be required in the developing and less developed countries. Kalada McFubara.
Thanks for the answer Kalada McFubara. I definitely agree with you, the Cartesian approach which is reductionist in nature has pushed the medical education towards high tech medicine in developing and developed countries.
I think public health has good documentation of historical perspective. It shows how it transformed its focuses from sanitation to healthcare system in general. What we lack is the localized historical accounts such as the evolution of medical practices in less developed countries, which are largely influenced by cultural and social contexts.