IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v18y1984i11p973-980.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Medical politics: Decline in the hegemony of the Australian Medical Association?

Author

Listed:
  • Hunter, Thelma

Abstract

The last 15 years have seen the emergence of medical associations challenging the long-standing hegemony of the Australian Medical Association (A.M.A.) in medical politics. The article focuses on the two major groups. The General Practitioner's Society in Australia and the Doctors Reform Society. Each represents the right and the left of an ideological spectrum within medical politics. Each has institutionalised longer term division within the profession which were contained within the A.M.A. so long as the basic principles and structure of Australia's voluntaristic health insurance schemes remained intact. Taken together, they represent a wider critique of the entrenched status and political power of the A.M.A. The article examines briefly the ideology, strategy and impact of each group. It concludes that their major significance lies, not in their effectiveness as pressure groups, but as they have affected the public image of the A.M.A. and of the profession as a whole. The future of each depends on secular changes affecting medicine and the profession, on the oversupply of doctors on economic stringencies, and importantly, on the reaction of the A.M.A. to critiques of its representative function.

Suggested Citation

  • Hunter, Thelma, 1984. "Medical politics: Decline in the hegemony of the Australian Medical Association?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 18(11), pages 973-980, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:18:y:1984:i:11:p:973-980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(84)90268-5
    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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:18:y:1984:i:11:p:973-980. 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.