Medical dominance then and now

Critical Reflections

Dados Bibliográficos

ID3628115
AutoresDavid Coburn (University of Toronto, autor correspondente)
Ano2006
Volume15
Fascículo5
Páginas432-443
Data de publicação2006-12-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoHealth Sociology Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1446-1242 • E-ISSN: 1839-3551
EditoraInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.5172/hesr.2006.15.5.432
OpenAlexW1970548722
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas32
Referências citadas17

The publication of Evan Willis’ notable book coincided with the appearance of similar Anglo-American accounts. Now, there are retrospectives on medical power. Why then and why now? Professional power was central because health care was the focus of political discussion at the time but is now less important vis-a-vis political struggles over neo-liberalism. Freidson played a key role in bringing medical power into focus. Medicine is also less sociologically prominent now because it is in fact less powerful than it was. There is a convergence between the power of the traditional professions and that of numerous other expert occupations. Despite assumptions to the contrary it is noted that neither the linkages of knowledge/expertise/power nor the existence of putatively self-regulatory organizations is sufficient to ensure professional dominance or control. Closure theory, the pre-eminent approach in the area of the professions, cannot adequately explain these changes in medical power. Rather, both challenges to medical power and the changing salience of medical dominance within sociology can be illuminated using the type of political economy approach which Evan Willis helped to pioneer

Political science · Politics · Social science · Sociology · Employment and Welfare Studies · Healthcare Systems and Challenges · Law · Social Policy and Reform Studies