IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i12p1867-1873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An anthropological analysis of European Union (EU) health governance as biopolitics: The case of the EU tissues and cells directive

Author

Listed:
  • Hoeyer, Klaus

Abstract

Healthcare in Europe is increasingly influenced by European Union (EU) regulation enacted to harmonise heterogeneous practices through common safety standards. In many instances directives on safety issues evade public debate because they are seen as merely 'technical matters'. In this paper I analyse the implications at a national level in Denmark of one such piece of legislation: the EU Tissues and Cells Directive. The analysis is based on participant observation, interviews and document analysis conducted in the period from May 2007 to June 2009. I follow translations of the Directive from the level of the EU text into national legislation and further into everyday practices. From a biopolitical perspective, I explore the implications of this so-called technical directive that appear necessary for policymakers and yet remain strangely detached from the everyday experiences of people for whom and on whom it is supposed to work. The Directive has serious implications for the allocation of funds, for patients and for healthcare professionals. These implications need to be discussed. Even more basically, the analysis points to a need for discussing what makes so-called technical directives necessary. This article is intended to facilitate this type of debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoeyer, Klaus, 2010. "An anthropological analysis of European Union (EU) health governance as biopolitics: The case of the EU tissues and cells directive," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1867-1873, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:12:p:1867-1873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(10)00227-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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:70:y:2010:i:12:p:1867-1873. 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.