IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/max/cprpbr/40.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Physician Sovereignty: The Dangerous Persistence of an Obsolete Idea. Herbert Lourie Memorial Lecture on Health Policy

Author

Listed:
  • David Lawrence

Abstract

The heart of the model is this: to quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy and it is us." We doctors are the problem, not because wqe are venal or self-serving or insulated from reality. Far from it. Most of us are hard-working, dedicated professionals. We are the problem, though, because of the way our profession developed in the 20th century. This model is no longer appropriate for what lies ahead. The notion of the sovereign physician comes from Paul Starr's 1982 work, "The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry.: Starr argues that the rise of the sovereign profession we know today was neither inevitable nor foreordained. It was instead the result of a long struggle to establish the modern medical profession in the face of other competitors and forces. Sovereignty is neither good nor bad in and of itself. It is its manifestations in medical practice, and its suitability for the future, that is of concern.

Suggested Citation

  • David Lawrence, 2009. "Physician Sovereignty: The Dangerous Persistence of an Obsolete Idea. Herbert Lourie Memorial Lecture on Health Policy," Center for Policy Research Policy Briefs 40, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School, Syracuse University.
  • Handle: RePEc:max:cprpbr:40
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/cpr/publications/cpr_policy_briefs/pb40.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item

    Keywords

    health care; chronic disease; medical care; medical technology; health reform; physicians;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:max:cprpbr:40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Margaret Austin) or (Candi Patterson) or (Katrina Wingle). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cpsyrus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.