(Un)disciplined Patients, (Un)controlled Medical Authority?

Pub Date : 2024-03-21 DOI:10.30965/18763308-51010004
Viola Lászlófi
{"title":"(Un)disciplined Patients, (Un)controlled Medical Authority?","authors":"Viola Lászlófi","doi":"10.30965/18763308-51010004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nStarting at the end of the 1940s, the so-called “democratic transformation of healthcare” was not limited to the expansion of beneficiaries and making care provided in the system free of charge. It also sought to define the new roles of those who run (physicians) and use (patients) the system. To enforce the implementation of new norms, medical ethics committees were set up, and in many respects, these new structures were integrated into the system of social courts and were tasked mainly with the protection patients’ rights during investigations into complaints against doctors. This article aims to address the following question: What role did the functioning of these medical ethics committees play in healthcare operations organized along socialist principles, considering their involvement in both politics and healthcare? Additionally, what forms of governmentality can be inferred from the ways these committees functioned within the framework of socialist healthcare? To answer these questions, I examine patients’ complaints received by the medical ethics committees, as the core objective of socialist healthcare was to provide quality healthcare and educate individuals about utilizing the socialist healthcare system. My hypothesis is that while the committees exhibited organizational and operational characteristics aligned with the basic institutions of socialist democracy, their ultimate goal was to educate individuals in accordance with the principles of the socialist system. However, the committees’ decisions were influenced by the degrees of autonomy granted to them and existing practices for supervising medical activity prior to the establishment of the state-socialist system. Consequently, they functioned not as guardians of the socialist state’s biopolitics but rather as autonomous bodies of medical advocacy. Although patients used various strategies of argumentation to justify the incompatibility of their grievances with socialist healthcare, doctors did not primarily assess the seriousness of the problems based on patient complaints. Institutional constraints and specific professional practices, which also played a role in medical activities, had a more significant impact on the decision-making process.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":" 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763308-51010004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Starting at the end of the 1940s, the so-called “democratic transformation of healthcare” was not limited to the expansion of beneficiaries and making care provided in the system free of charge. It also sought to define the new roles of those who run (physicians) and use (patients) the system. To enforce the implementation of new norms, medical ethics committees were set up, and in many respects, these new structures were integrated into the system of social courts and were tasked mainly with the protection patients’ rights during investigations into complaints against doctors. This article aims to address the following question: What role did the functioning of these medical ethics committees play in healthcare operations organized along socialist principles, considering their involvement in both politics and healthcare? Additionally, what forms of governmentality can be inferred from the ways these committees functioned within the framework of socialist healthcare? To answer these questions, I examine patients’ complaints received by the medical ethics committees, as the core objective of socialist healthcare was to provide quality healthcare and educate individuals about utilizing the socialist healthcare system. My hypothesis is that while the committees exhibited organizational and operational characteristics aligned with the basic institutions of socialist democracy, their ultimate goal was to educate individuals in accordance with the principles of the socialist system. However, the committees’ decisions were influenced by the degrees of autonomy granted to them and existing practices for supervising medical activity prior to the establishment of the state-socialist system. Consequently, they functioned not as guardians of the socialist state’s biopolitics but rather as autonomous bodies of medical advocacy. Although patients used various strategies of argumentation to justify the incompatibility of their grievances with socialist healthcare, doctors did not primarily assess the seriousness of the problems based on patient complaints. Institutional constraints and specific professional practices, which also played a role in medical activities, had a more significant impact on the decision-making process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
(不守规矩的病人,不受控的医疗机构?
从 20 世纪 40 年代末开始,所谓的 "医疗保健的民主转型 "并不局限于扩大受益人范围和免费提供医疗服务。它还试图界定医疗系统的管理者(医生)和使用者(患者)的新角色。为了强制执行新的规范,成立了医学伦理委员会,在许多方面,这些新机构被纳入了社会法院系统,其主要任务是在调查对医生的投诉时保护患者的权利。本文旨在探讨以下问题:考虑到这些医学伦理委员会既参与政治又参与医疗保健,它们在按照社会主义原则组织的医疗保健运作中发挥了什么作用?此外,从这些委员会在社会主义医疗保健框架内的运作方式中,可以推断出哪些形式的政府性?为了回答这些问题,我研究了医学伦理委员会收到的患者投诉,因为社会主义医疗保健的核心目标是提供高质量的医疗保健,并教育个人如何利用社会主义医疗保健系统。我的假设是,虽然这些委员会在组织和运作上表现出与社会主义民主基本制度相一致的特点,但其最终目标是按照社会主义制度的原则对个人进行教育。然而,委员会的决策受到赋予它们的自主权程度和国家社会主义制度建立之前监督医疗活动的现有做法的影响。因此,这些委员会的职能不是作为社会主义国家生物政治的监护人,而是作为自主的医疗宣传机构。尽管患者使用各种论证策略来证明他们的不满与社会主义医疗不相容,但医生并不主要根据患者的投诉来评估问题的严重性。在医疗活动中同样发挥作用的制度限制和具体的专业实践对决策过程产生了更为重要的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1