Political Institutions and the Comparative Medicalization of Abortion

Author:

Halfmann Drew1

Affiliation:

1. University of California-Davis, Davis, CA, USA

Abstract

Comparative-historical research on medicalization is rare and, perhaps for that reason, largely ignores political institutions, which tend to vary more across countries than within them. This article proposes a political-institutional theory of medicalization in which health care policy legacies, political decentralization, and constitutionalism shape the preferences, discourses, strategies, and influence of actors that seek or resist medicalization. The theory helps explain why abortion has been more medicalized in Britain than the United States. The analysis finds that the American medical profession, unlike its British counterpart, focused on defending private medicine rather than protecting its power to “diagnose” the medical necessity of abortions; that American political decentralization aided the establishment of abortion on request by encouraging strategic innovation and learning that shaped social movement strategies, medical issue avoidance, and the growth of nonhospital clinics; and finally, that constitutionalism promoted rights discourses that partially crowded out medical ones.

Funder

university of california, davis

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Commonwealth Fund

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Social Psychology

Cited by 12 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. On the Social Existence of Mental Health Categories: The Case of Sex Addiction;Social Problems;2023-06-15

2. MECHANISMS OF COALITION FORMATION: VENUE SHIFTING IN THE ABORTION RIGHTS MOVEMENT BEFORE ROE V. WADE*;Mobilization: An International Quarterly;2023-03-01

3. Abortion as a Public Health Risk in COVID-19 Antiabortion Legislation;Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law;2023-01-23

4. Medicine, Psychology, and the Welfare State;Toward a Biopsychosocial Welfare State?;2023

5. The Biopsychosocial Welfare State: A Theoretical Framework;Toward a Biopsychosocial Welfare State?;2023

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3