23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Doctor as Parent, Partner, Provider… or Comrade? Distribution of Power in Past and Present Models of the Doctor–Patient Relationship

      research-article
      Health Care Analysis
      Springer US
      Solidarity, Power, Doctor–patient relationship, Healthcare, Bureaucracy

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The commonly occurring metaphors and models of the doctor–patient relationship can be divided into three clusters, depending on what distribution of power they represent: in the paternalist cluster, power resides with the physician; in the consumer model, power resides with the patient; in the partnership model, power is distributed equally between doctor and patient. Often, this tripartite division is accepted as an exhaustive typology of doctor–patient relationships. The main objective of this paper is to challenge this idea by introducing a fourth possibility and distribution of power, namely, the distribution in which power resides with neither doctor nor patient. This equality in powerlessness—the hallmark of “the age of bureaucratic parsimony”—is the point of departure for a qualitatively new doctor–patient relationship, which is best described in terms of solidarity between comrades. This paper specifies the characteristics of this specific type of solidarity and illustrates it with a case study of how Swedish doctors and patients interrelate in the sickness certification practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Street‐Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sickness certification system in the United Kingdom: qualitative study of views of general practitioners in Scotland.

              To explore how general practitioners operate the sickness certification system, their views on the system, and suggestions for change. Qualitative focus group study consisting of 11 focus groups with 67 participants. General practitioners in practices in Glasgow, Tayside, and Highland regions, Scotland. Purposive sample of general practitioners, with further theoretical sampling of key informant general practitioners to examine emerging themes. General practitioners believed that the sickness certification system failed to address complex, chronic, or doubtful cases. They seemed to develop various operational strategies for its implementation. There appeared to be important deliberate misuse of the system by general practitioners, possibly related to conflicts about roles and incongruities in the system. The doctor-patient relationship was perceived to conflict with the current role of general practitioners in sickness certification. When making decisions about certification, the general practitioners considered a wide variety of factors. They experienced contradictory demands from other system stakeholders and felt blamed for failing to make impossible reconciliations. They clearly identified the difficulties of operating the system when there was no continuity of patient care. Many wished either to relinquish their gatekeeper role or to continue only with major changes. Policy makers need to recognise and accommodate the range and complexity of factors that influence the behaviour of general practitioners operating as gatekeepers to the sickness certification system, before making changes. Such changes are otherwise unlikely to result in improvement. Models other than the primary care gatekeeper model should be considered.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mani.shutzberg@sh.se
                Journal
                Health Care Anal
                Health Care Anal
                Health Care Analysis
                Springer US (New York )
                1065-3058
                1573-3394
                27 April 2021
                27 April 2021
                2021
                : 29
                : 3
                : 231-248
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.412654.0, ISNI 0000 0001 0679 2457, Centre for Studies in Practical Knowledge, , Södertörn University, ; Stockholm, Sweden
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7216-3736
                Article
                432
                10.1007/s10728-021-00432-2
                8322008
                33905025
                2c85ff2d-ff26-408c-a1fd-c10e959cb2c7
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 8 April 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Södertörn University
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

                Medicine
                solidarity,power,doctor–patient relationship,healthcare,bureaucracy
                Medicine
                solidarity, power, doctor–patient relationship, healthcare, bureaucracy

                Comments

                Comment on this article