Medical Dominance Over Health Professionals and Patients
This paper investigates the validity of claims that the medical profession exercises undue dominance over other health professionals and patients. Drawing on a review of sociological literature, the paper traces the historical development of medical dominance from pre-industrial "person-oriented" medical cosmologies through hospital-based and laboratory medicine. It engages Foucault's concept of the "clinical gaze" and the relational nature of medical power, examines interprofessional conflict in contemporary healthcare, and considers whether the growing autonomy of allied health occupations signals a genuine decline in medical dominance. The paper concludes that while medical dominance remains substantial, it is increasingly challenged by the proliferation of autonomous health occupations.
- Introduction: Defines research question and medical dominance concept
- Medical Dominance: Definition and Forms of Autonomy: Typology of professional autonomy at multiple levels
- Historical Development of Medical Dominance: Jewson's cosmologies and Foucault's clinical gaze
- Medical Dominance in Contemporary Medicine: Interprofessional conflict and erosion of medical authority
- Summary and Conclusion: Medical dominance persists but faces growing challenges
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in a coherent chronological framework, moving from pre-industrial medical cosmologies through to contemporary interprofessional debates, giving the analysis clear historical depth.
- It draws on a range of theoretical perspectives — including Jewson's medical cosmologies, Foucault's concept of disciplinary power, and Ovretveit's typology of professional autonomy — without conflating them, demonstrating engagement with competing sociological frameworks.
- The conclusion is appropriately measured, acknowledging that medical dominance persists while conceding that it is being gradually eroded, which reflects the nuance present in the literature rather than overstating a single position.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of literature synthesis: rather than summarizing sources one by one, it weaves multiple scholars (Jewson, Foucault, Ovretveit, Bahnisch) into a single developing argument about the nature and trajectory of medical dominance. This integrative approach is central to sociological essay writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a contextualizing introduction that defines the research question and establishes the concept of medical dominance. Section I unpacks the definition and multiple levels of professional autonomy. Section II provides a historical account from Jewson's cosmologies through Foucauldian analysis. Section III shifts to contemporary challenges, including interprofessional conflict and the question of whether dominance is declining. A brief conclusion synthesizes the findings and offers a qualified answer to the opening question.
Introduction
The objective of this study is to answer the question of how true the claims are that the medical profession exercises undue dominance over health professionals and patients. Toward this end, this study conducts a review of the relevant literature. According to Willis et al. (2008), the rationale that doctors use for maintaining autonomy and control over their working conditions derives in part from "the importance our society attributes to the relationship between the doctor and their patient," referred to as the patient-practitioner relationship. An important part of the doctor's role is described as "the obligation to provide the best available evidence-based care for patients" (Willis et al., 2008), a concept termed personalized service (Alford, 1975, as cited in Willis et al., 2008). This means that the doctor does not favor one patient over another and maintains confidentiality about the patient's condition. These obligations afford doctors a great deal of control over healthcare, and without autonomy this relationship would greatly suffer.
The power afforded to doctors derives from their history of success in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which established them firmly as the "dominant controllers of medical care" well before the development of scientific medicine (Willis, 1983, as cited in Willis et al., 2008). This authority is granted by the state and positions the medical profession as what is termed medical dominance (Willis et al., 2008).
Bibliography
Bahnisch, M. (2012). Medical dominance and the continuing robustness of professional cultures in healthcare. CMEDRS/DME Research Rap, 7 Aug 2012.
Crinson, I. (2007). Concepts of health and illness, Section 2: Sociological conceptualization of medical knowledge and power. Health Knowledge.
Armstrong, D. (1976). The decline of the medical hegemony: A review of movement reports during the NHS. Social Science and Medicine, 10(3–4), 157–163.
Henly, [initial unknown], & Harrison, S. (1982). Lines of accountability. Health and Social Services Journal, 22 April, 506–508.
Henly, [initial unknown], & Harrison, S. (1981). Remedial professions in the corporate management structure. Unpublished document, Nuffield Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Leeds.
Irvine, R. (1985). Power and conflict in primary medical care: A case study of the micro-politics of health centre practice. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Irvine, R., Kerridge, I., McPhee, J., & Freeman, S. (2002). Interprofessionalism and ethics: Consensus or clash of cultures? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16(3).
Ovretveit, J. (2008). Medical dominance and the development of professional autonomy in physiotherapy. Sociology of Health and Illness, 7(1).
Willis, E. et al. (2008). Understanding the Australian health care system. Elsevier Australia.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.