Search results

Health social movements address several issues: (a) access to, or provision of, health care services; (b) disease, illness experience, disability and contested illness; and/or (c) health inequality and inequity based on race, ethnicity, gender, class and/or sexuality. These movements have challenged a variety of authority structures in society, resulting in massive changes in the health care system. While many other social movements challenge medical authority, a rapidly growing type of health social movement, “embodied health movements” (EHMs), challenge both medical and scientific authority. Embodied health movements do this in three ways: (1) they make the body central to social movements, especially with regard to the embodied experience of people with the disease; (2) they typically include challenges to existing medical/scientific knowledge and practice; and (3) they often involve activists collaborating with scientists and health professionals in pursuing treatment, prevention, research, and expanded funding. We present a conceptual framework for understanding embodied health movements as simultaneously challenging authority structures and allying with them, and offer the environmental breast cancer movement as an exemplar case.

We are in the midst of a broad societal change in which women’s sexual problems are becoming increasingly medicalized, characterized as treatable medical conditions and defined and understood as a largely physiologically based disease, called “female sexual dysfunction” (FSD). When a condition is medicalized, a medical framework is used to understand it, and medical interventions are used to treat it. As part of this process, then, over the last several years, researchers and pharmaceutical companies have turned attention to developing medical treatments for FSD. As this medicalization continues to unfold with potentially important impacts, it is crucial that we understand the forces working to shape it.

Purpose: This chapter examines the implementation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) health curricula in medical education, focusing on how this content is presented to students to understand if these curricula can fulfill goals of achieving healthcare equity for LGBTQ populations.

Methodology: This research draws on data from six months of participant observation of an academic medical center and school and 28 interviews with medical faculty, students, community members, administrators, and LGBTQ Health Center employees.

Findings: This research has three findings: (1) this medical school has variable definitions for LGBTQ health, making it a hybrid form of knowledge based in (a) understanding the unique health needs of; (b) being culturally competent to; and (c) being a (structural) advocate for LGBTQ patients; (2) LGBTQ health is integrated into multiple courses in the curriculum; and (3) LGBTQ health is becoming a medical specialty frequently delivered to students by LGBTQ health experts.

Research limitations and implications: This research used snowball sampling to recruit participants engaged in LGBTQ health at the institution; it therefore risks self-selection bias. Findings from this study are not generalizable.

Originality: This research argues that LGBTQ health experts engage in a new kind of diversity and inclusion work because (1) these health experts are not always LGBTQ identified; (2) this work is not necessarily unpaid or involuntary; and (3) it involves a hybrid knowledge requiring an understanding of LGBTQ identity, medical knowledge, and social science. Because these LGBTQ health experts opt into this work, and broadly define it, a message available to other physicians and students is that LGBTQ health remains elective.

This chapter discusses guidelines that specify the ethical standards for medical research in very poor countries in order to show how a sociological explanation of illness causation and health care access can offer some additional insight into the refinement of those guidelines. There has been considerable discussion on the proper ethical standards to apply given the context of extreme poverty and inadequate health care infrastructure that characterizes poor countries. Our analysis is intended to suggest that a sociological explanation for illness causation provides a clear justification for including the social context when specifying ethical guidelines and also clarifies the issues that must be addressed. This perspective is particularly sensitive to inequalities in health and access to health resources among medical research subjects, and therefore addresses core issues of justice and beneficence.

How is medical knowledge produced and what are the implications of that knowledge production for medical practice? Using theoretical ideas on evidence-based medicine, standardization in medical research and practice, and biopower, I examine the relationship between medical knowledge and medical practice through the case of pelvic pain care in the US.

Data from ethnographic observations at two medical conferences as well as interviews with healthcare providers inform a critical analysis of the medical discourse.

The analysis reveals how evidence-based medicine is practiced in the context of medical conditions that lack objective evidence, as well as the unintended consequences of such practices. I provide an alternative approach to medical practice for conditions lacking traditional evidence through presenting outlier cases in the data.

In doing so, I make the broad theoretical argument that biomedical paradigms must emerge through the critical process of negative dialectics in order to reach past the limits of standardized medical care.

In sociologically analyzing the case of pelvic pain care, I reveal dire limits in the evidence-based approach to medical care for conditions and symptoms that may be deemed medical anomalies, demanding an alternative approach to care for such conditions.

Key forces shaping higher education drive institutions to make strategic choices to locate themselves in niches where they can make use of their resources effectively and efficiently. However, the concepts of strategy and strategic positioning in higher education are contested issues due to the nature and complexity of the sector and the university. As an industry facing increasing pressure toward marketization and competition, this study calls for an analysis of higher education, as an industry, in a more business-oriented framework. This chapter makes a contribution to scholarly research in higher education by applying Porter’s five forces framework to medical education. In doing so, it provides a foundational perspective on the competitive landscape, its environment, its organizations, and the groups and individuals that make up the higher and medical education sector.

The purpose of this study was to explore the cultural and structural conditions that influence male and female physicians’ career choices and career expectations. Although women constitute 59 percent of the physicians and 55 percent of the specialists in Finland in 2014, the rate of women in oto-rhino-laryngology (38 percent) was one of the lowest among the specialties. The data consist of semi-structured interviews with young physicians (N = 19), who have entered a career in oto-rhino-laryngology (ORL) in Finland.

The results point to three features which characterize the career pattern in the specialty. First, the specialty is not one that draws students to medicine per se but rather one that is chosen during medical training. The decision to specialize in ORL was by many respondents framed as a “coincidence,” while others were attracted by the diverse character of the specialty. Second, the skills needed for being a “good” practitioner were defined as handiness, courage, and social skills, but these were not defined in a gendered way. Third, the career prospects for women within the specialty were defined by a neutralizing or a gendering framework. The neutralizing framework was represented by the pipeline argument which suggests that there is a temporary time lag in women’s representation in higher positions and that women are advancing steadily in the academic and administrative pipeline. The gendering framework pointed to the male ethos of the surgical tasks in the specialty as a barrier for women’s advancement in those areas. This chapter concludes that the pipeline view belittles existing gender inequalities in men’s and women’s medical careers and views gender differences as temporary maladjustments rather than inherent features of gendered organizations.

In this introductory chapter, I discuss the rationale for this edited collection and the contribution it can make to advancing knowledge of gender inequalities and promoting social justice in the medical profession and medical education. I provide a short overview of and critique of popular debates in the medical community in the United Kingdom and I also discuss briefly research about women’s careers in the United Kingdom and globally. The introductory chapter provides a description of each chapter and its contribution to scholarship about gender, careers and inequalities in Medicine/Medical Education.

The predicted doctors’ shortage in Austria and the increasing feminisation of the medical profession are aspects of a passionate debate on gender inequality in medical careers and particularly on sufficient medical care in Austria. Therefore, this review summarises main findings on gender inequality in medical careers in Austria using an intersectional lens.

The intersections derived from literature elucidate that gender inequality is not predominantly dependent on having a family including children, but that various combinations of these intersections influence women’s careers.

There is a need to further investigate intersections influencing medical careers in women and to relate these to affirmative action measures. Affirmative action measures need quotas and consideration of various areas besides work–family balance. There is a need to evaluate and adapt interventions to promote women in medicine according to the intersections derived from the literature.

Medicalization is the increasing social control of the everyday by medical experts. It is a key concept in the sociology of health and illness because it sees medicine as not merely a scientific endeavor, but a social one as well. Medicalization is a “process whereby more and more of everyday life has come under medical dominion, influence, and supervision” (Zola, 1983, p. 295); previously these areas of everyday life were viewed in religious or moral terms (Conrad & Schneider, 1980; Weeks, 2003). More specifically, medicalization is the process of “defining a problem in medical terms, using medical language to describe a problem, adopting a medical framework to understand a problem, or using a medical intervention to ‘treat’ it” (Conrad, 1992, p. 211). Sociologists have used this concept to describe the shift in the site of decision-making and knowledge about health from the lay public to the medical profession.