有争议的霸权:1930-1952年荷兰神经外科病人护理的谈判。

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1093/jhmas/jrae014
Bart Lutters
{"title":"有争议的霸权:1930-1952年荷兰神经外科病人护理的谈判。","authors":"Bart Lutters","doi":"10.1093/jhmas/jrae014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The emergence of the neurosurgical patient as a novel clinical entity in the Netherlands was marked by a lingering conflict between neurologists and neurosurgeons, in which both types of specialists sought to assume the clinical and institutional leadership of neurosurgical patient care. In the 1920s and 1930s, neurologists had facilitated the establishment of the first generation of neurosurgeons in the country, and in the process, had managed to clinically and institutionally subordinate neurosurgery to neurology. As the demand for neurosurgical patient care grew, the neurosurgeons began to challenge this hegemonic relationship. The neurologists, however, were unwilling to give up their control, fearing that they would be bypassed in the diagnosis of patients eligible to neurosurgery. These conflicting aims and interests resulted in an intricate demarcation battle, in which the boundary work between neurologists and neurosurgeons was directly played out at the local workplace and at the meetings of the Study Club for Neuro-Surgery, and indirectly at various other sites of contestation, such as medical journals and academic lecture halls, as both parties sought to rally external stakeholders to their cause. During these negotiations, local, national, and international forces increasingly intertwined to shape the particular organization of Dutch neurosurgery in the middle of the twentieth century. By analyzing this multilayered demarcation process, this article draws attention to the complexity of medical boundary work, and to the way in which, despite pervasive international influences, specialist practice was ultimately negotiated at the local and national levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":49998,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Disputed Hegemony: Negotiating Neurosurgical Patient Care in the Netherlands, 1930-1952.\",\"authors\":\"Bart Lutters\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jhmas/jrae014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The emergence of the neurosurgical patient as a novel clinical entity in the Netherlands was marked by a lingering conflict between neurologists and neurosurgeons, in which both types of specialists sought to assume the clinical and institutional leadership of neurosurgical patient care. In the 1920s and 1930s, neurologists had facilitated the establishment of the first generation of neurosurgeons in the country, and in the process, had managed to clinically and institutionally subordinate neurosurgery to neurology. As the demand for neurosurgical patient care grew, the neurosurgeons began to challenge this hegemonic relationship. The neurologists, however, were unwilling to give up their control, fearing that they would be bypassed in the diagnosis of patients eligible to neurosurgery. These conflicting aims and interests resulted in an intricate demarcation battle, in which the boundary work between neurologists and neurosurgeons was directly played out at the local workplace and at the meetings of the Study Club for Neuro-Surgery, and indirectly at various other sites of contestation, such as medical journals and academic lecture halls, as both parties sought to rally external stakeholders to their cause. During these negotiations, local, national, and international forces increasingly intertwined to shape the particular organization of Dutch neurosurgery in the middle of the twentieth century. By analyzing this multilayered demarcation process, this article draws attention to the complexity of medical boundary work, and to the way in which, despite pervasive international influences, specialist practice was ultimately negotiated at the local and national levels.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/jrae014\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/jrae014","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在荷兰,神经外科病人作为一个新的临床实体出现时,神经内科医师和神经外科医师之间的冲突始终存在,这两类专家都试图在神经外科病人护理的临床和机构方面占据领导地位。在二十世纪二三十年代,神经科医生促成了荷兰第一代神经外科医生的诞生,并在这一过程中成功地使神经外科在临床和制度上从属于神经内科。随着神经外科病人护理需求的增长,神经外科医生开始挑战这种霸权关系。然而,神经科医生不愿放弃他们的控制权,担心他们在诊断符合神经外科手术条件的病人时会被绕过。这些相互冲突的目标和利益导致了一场错综复杂的划界之战,在这场战争中,神经学家和神经外科医生之间的划界工作直接在当地工作场所和神经外科研究俱乐部的会议上展开,也间接地在医学期刊和学术报告厅等其他各种争夺场所进行,双方都试图拉拢外部利益相关者支持自己的事业。在这些谈判过程中,地方、国家和国际力量日益交织在一起,形成了二十世纪中叶荷兰神经外科的特殊组织形式。通过分析这一多层次的划界过程,本文提请人们注意医学边界工作的复杂性,以及尽管国际影响无处不在,但专科实践最终还是在地方和国家层面进行谈判的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Disputed Hegemony: Negotiating Neurosurgical Patient Care in the Netherlands, 1930-1952.

The emergence of the neurosurgical patient as a novel clinical entity in the Netherlands was marked by a lingering conflict between neurologists and neurosurgeons, in which both types of specialists sought to assume the clinical and institutional leadership of neurosurgical patient care. In the 1920s and 1930s, neurologists had facilitated the establishment of the first generation of neurosurgeons in the country, and in the process, had managed to clinically and institutionally subordinate neurosurgery to neurology. As the demand for neurosurgical patient care grew, the neurosurgeons began to challenge this hegemonic relationship. The neurologists, however, were unwilling to give up their control, fearing that they would be bypassed in the diagnosis of patients eligible to neurosurgery. These conflicting aims and interests resulted in an intricate demarcation battle, in which the boundary work between neurologists and neurosurgeons was directly played out at the local workplace and at the meetings of the Study Club for Neuro-Surgery, and indirectly at various other sites of contestation, such as medical journals and academic lecture halls, as both parties sought to rally external stakeholders to their cause. During these negotiations, local, national, and international forces increasingly intertwined to shape the particular organization of Dutch neurosurgery in the middle of the twentieth century. By analyzing this multilayered demarcation process, this article draws attention to the complexity of medical boundary work, and to the way in which, despite pervasive international influences, specialist practice was ultimately negotiated at the local and national levels.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences
Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Started in 1946, the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences is internationally recognized as one of the top publications in its field. The journal''s coverage is broad, publishing the latest original research on the written beginnings of medicine in all its aspects. When possible and appropriate, it focuses on what practitioners of the healing arts did or taught, and how their peers, as well as patients, received and interpreted their efforts. Subscribers include clinicians and hospital libraries, as well as academic and public historians.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Safe Sex and the Debate over Condoms on Campus in the 1980s: Sperm Busters at Harvard and Protection Connection at the University of Texas at Austin. Utopia of Safe Air: How Soviet Research Challenged Western Air Quality Norms, 1950s-1960s. "Nerves Need Nourishment": Advertising Phospho-Energon Pills in Early Twentieth-Century Sweden. Prescribing Information: Elizabeth B. Connell, the Pill, and the (Woman) Patient's Peace of Mind. The End of the Beginning? Temporality and Bioagency in Pandemic Research.
×
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