John Law writes:

The body has not always been an object/subject. Michel Foucault suggests that this is a trope that was invented in the early nineteenth century. Before then, diseases were entities in their own right, classified in nosological tables. Patients seeking relief would describe the ailments they were suffering from, and doctors would then infer which disease was inhabiting the patient’s body – and what might next happen. A radical epistemic shift was needed for diseases to become conditions of the human body. After this shift the truth about a disease could no longer be detected by listening to the patients’ words. Instead it required a well trained gaze at bodily tissues. Since deviant tissues are usually hidden beneath the skin, sure knowledge about diseases could only be established after death. So the body-object/subject-body distinction with which we now live was established. In the words of Mark Sullivan:
“For Bichat, the medical subject and the medical object were not two different substances within the same individual, but two different individuals: one alive and one dead. Knower and known are epistemologically distinguished with the physician assuming the position of the knower and the patient/corpse the position of the known.”
Sullivan argues that this split generates the crucial dualism that troubles modern medicine. This is not the dualism attributed to Descartes, between two kinds of substance, body and mind. Instead it is the distinction between substance and activity:
“Here, the activity of self-interpretation or self-knowledge is eliminated from the body rather than the entity of mental substance. The body known and healed by modern medicine is not self-aware.”
Sullivan and many others seek to integrate people’s self-awareness back into modern medicine. But how?

Most authors suggest addition: alongside, or on top of, pathological knowledge of tissues and their deviances, doctors should make space for the self-awareness of their patients. They want medicine not only to look but also to listen; to grant patients their life as well as knowing them as if they were dead.
(and there is a location - a space for redressals and action - thus design enters in the interstices)
Embodied Action - Enacted Bodies

This is the full paper as submitted for Include 07.

IEID©: A model for people orientated design practice

This was the course handout given to the first year students. The focus was upon design for self-management of Diabetes.

Diabetes sem 2.pdf

This proposal was submitted for Designing the Future. And it was successful.

Now we need to bring on board Health/ Nursing to complete the representation of various depts/ programs.

Ways of Working Together - Project Diabetes.pdf

This is the Project by Students who worked on the Microsoft Design Challenge 06.
http://www.nid.edu/msrdc2006/

I found this on the net. This may be useful for you - if you are looking for specific sites to put into your diary/planner.
indian-journal-of-medical-sciences.doc

Subconsciously every designer in my opinion has an agenda or angle to which they approach a design exercise. Early on in this project my group, specifically myself were taken away by the medical corporation frame of mind, we loved the romantic idea of “high tech” gadgets could revolutionize one’s life. We had turned ourselves into product designers for mass consumption. Personally I was caught in this mind set without any comprehension of what it stood for. I felt I was going somewhere, I had done something that was asked of me (strategic learning, that’s another topic), that our groups work had the potential to help them.

Two clear examples of the frame of mind problem I had were in my first two ‘solutions’. The first was a smart tech tattoo that did everything for a diabetic while the second was a talking glucometer and injector pen for a blind person. The tattoo had obvious links with corporations, we didn’t know it, but we were ‘employees’ to a technology firm, telling people what they needed. The latter was an idea that formed as just engineers; I was looking for a harsh medical solution that really was just an adaptation of a previous designs. I was simply playing an expert, though I didn’t know it. Again I felt that I was going down a suitable path. This is a major problem for a designers, since we can make vast assumptions before were realize it.

For our group, myself in particular, high technology was confused with smart technology. We sat in one particular class generating outlandish idea that we convinced ourselves were ‘right’. For me everything had to be big, everything had the potential to streamline a diabetic’s life, this excited me, filled me with a sense of hope that I was actually doing something. This was a major detour, and it was due to the futuristic sense that casts the perfect human race, mirroring back a clear image of how we see ourselves. This technology promised to solve all our problems; it was in our opinion the ‘magic bullet’. I think this is due to my misconception that designers can actually make big and vast improvements. It was a quick and easy solution; in one session I had solved everything filling me with a sense of achievement. On reflection I seemed to confused as to what to do, the smart technology idea can make it appear like your actually doing something to improve a person’s life, yet I came to realise it represented my imagination, that I was left with nothing at the end. Our group took a while to accept the idea that small improvements/additions to a diabetic’s life was the priority.

At the crux of the smart technology problem was the lack of knowledge. I was off designing gadgets without every listening to a diabetic. I saw it as a disease not as a lifestyle and thus had little understanding of life as seen by someone in the diabetic condition. I had not listened to the small aspects of a diabetic’s life, a space ignored by so many for so long. This was a place were I could make a realistic difference. This is the problem for the designer. We can be so isolated from the problem that we become disillusioned. Once I realised this fact, it felt like I was just

In the end designing using smart technology is fraught with danger. It is extremely difficult to produce a user orientated piece with being cast away in what it could do. Smart technology creates a feeling of reality in your imagination, everything is possible. Yet this ideal sweeps a designer away from what really matters, making small differences to people, just people.

Creating a diary seems like a relatively straightforward task, it should have a weekly planner, monthly planner, personal information, advertising etc. But designing a diary for a diabetic? One that is supposed to improve their everyday life? Not as simple as it seems.

Specific diaries such as a food lover’s diary usually contain recipes and calorie counting information. A teenage DOLLY diary would have all the latest in fashion, Hollywood and the hottest young talent. So should a diary for diabetics contain information on delivering insulin? Should it have emotional stories and quotes or spreadsheets for glucose readings?

In our class we have spoken of a methodology called, Inclusive Design. This involves interacting with the end user through empathy to understand what they actually want and need. It sounds like a fantastic idea, but will it suit everyone? We have too easily made assumptions about what would improve a diabetic’s management without actually understanding their minor frustrations. Within three groups we have chosen a demographic for which our diary/planner/calendar will be intended. Whether it is an 8 year old boy, a 40 year old mum or a 70 year old grandfather, trying to understand exactly what component of our diary would benefit them in their everyday struggles is confounding. However, the more we discuss the diaries the more convinced I am that they should be very specific in their aims and audience. If there are diaries for businessmen, sports fanatics, amateur photographers, why not a dairy for a 13 year old diabetic trying to deal with the constant changes in her body?

I think that at the end of it all, if it makes one persons life easier, giving them more freedom for the things they love, then it will be a success.

Its a month since this phase of the project began ( 5 weeks). Project Diabetes is a semster 2 project for Industrial Design students in the first year. They are learning to design through this process - with an emphasis upon their work being ‘people centered’.

Heard this morning on the radio/ ABC a statement that someone at DA had said that there was too much focus upon type 2 and not enough on type 1. Looked like our project is talking, or atleast resonating.

Diabetes Australia: We have met up with and begun talking to John at Diabetes Australia. John was very excited about the approach of the project and agreed that it was a neglected area. In recent days I have met Renza and she has said that helping mum’s of diabetic children it a worthwhile project to do.

The Diary 07 Project: Has tended to flouder a bit. So we have had Sue Thomas come and talk about Inclusive Design - the new big thing (method) out of the Royal College of Art in London - and essentially do some empathy training. Next week we have Scott Mayson who will speak to the students about Universal Design - the contemporary form of the body/ ergonomic approach to designing things. In few weeks we will have Daria Loi talking about Participative Design, and some case studies in the Medical sector. Meanwhile the students began with a focus upon 5-9 year old diabetics, 7-12 year olds and the third group is looking at new type-2 50′ish diabetics. As I left last evening I saw a planner happening, a diary happening - and the third group? Couldn’t survive the day after a drink at lunch. The students are to present their work next monday at 2 PM. Renza has promised to come and play the part of an anxious mum.

The Smart Tech thing: Has been set aside and awaits some progres on empathy and an understanding of life as seen by someone in the diabetic condition. We made quick progress on the gadget front with this - but that wasn’t the need at all. We had begun to play the expert early: another gadget, a redesigned glucometer. And so on. But a thing that talked to tomagotchi’s?

More on this in a few weeks.