IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v305y2022ics0277953622003999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Professional authority and sexual coercion: A paradigmatic case study of doctor abuse

Author

Listed:
  • Mulvihill, Natasha

Abstract

Professionals occupy a position of esteem in society. Doctors and health professionals tend to score especially highly on public opinion surveys of trust. Sexual violence and abuse (SVA) by medical professionals towards their patients is a grave breach of that confidence. This paper uses thematic analysis of a paradigmatic case study of doctor abuse, drawn from a larger sample of semi-structured interviews conducted for an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded United Kingdom (UK) study 2015–2018 into justice and gender based violence. It explores how professional authority can both facilitate and conceal sexual coercion through building dependency; use of language and authorship of the official record; and by functional complicity and ‘data doubling’ within intra and inter-professional cultures. While there is an established literature on child sexual abuse, including in institutional contexts, this paper focuses on the lived experience of grooming and sexual violence of an adult survivor of doctor abuse.

Suggested Citation

  • Mulvihill, Natasha, 2022. "Professional authority and sexual coercion: A paradigmatic case study of doctor abuse," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:305:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622003999
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622003999
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115093?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:305:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622003999. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.