Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
The real causes of losing influence, status, and dignity of our profession.
- Sergio Stagnaro (20 August 2004)
-
Attacking Women for Doing Well?
- Jay Ilangaratne (20 August 2004)
-
Diversity is required
- Deborah J Verran (21 August 2004)
-
A 'Very Black Day' For Competent Female Professionals . . .
- Joseph . C . Obi (21 August 2004)
-
women in medicine
- naheed nabi (23 August 2004)
-
Women in medicine: Sexism is not the only reason for women's "unequal status" in the workplace
- Kingsley R. Browne (23 August 2004)
-
I'm alright Gill
- susanne mccabe (24 August 2004)
-
Status Quo
- Des Spence (25 August 2004)
-
Women in Medicine
- Dr Clarissa Fabre (26 August 2004)
-
Women in General Practice
- Francesco Carelli (28 August 2004)
-
Women in Medicine
- SF Gray (1 September 2004)
-
Too much Weber, not enough Gramsci?
- Steve Iliffe (6 September 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Sergio Stagnaro, Specialist in Blood, Gastrointestinal, and Metabolic Diseases. Researcher in Biophysical Semeiotics. Via Erasmo Piaggio 23/8 16037 Riva Trigoso (Genova)Italy.
Send response to journal:
|
Sirs, Certainly there is now-a-days some concern that our profession might lose influence, status and, I dare to say, dignity. The real causes, however, are not the increasing number of women within medicine, as allows me to state 47-year-long experience. At this point, among “few countries”, which have made substantial progress towards sexual equality and women's empowerment, one must add also Italy. In my opinion, the war against the loss of status and influence could initiate, for instance, ameliorating the teaching of physical semeiotics and its recent advances, i.e., Biophysical Semeiotics (See HONCode website233736, www.semeioticabiofisica.it). As far as clinical medicine is concerned, I’d like to point out that ignoring the old, traditional, acàdemic, but especially the new investigation method (See above-cited website) of physical examination in day-to-day practice brings about the present technological Medicine, overlooking physical investigation, and doctor’s losing dignity, independently of physician’s sex. In reality, by the aid of “biophysical-semeiotic” examination, every doctor’s “intuition” (so- called clinical eye) passes successively through the precise, objective, critical filter of a “new” physical examination, based on objective, accurate and reliable data, biological systems provide learned doctors, who utilize a simple stethoscope (2-4). Fortunately, nowadays Biophysical Semeiotics is a reality and I consider preisworthy those mass-media, and particularly medicine peer reviews, as BMJ, BCMJ (5), and NEJM (6), which spread the news that physical semeiotics is no longer the Cinderella among other numerous medical disciplines (2), in the interest of patients, doctors authorithy, and NHS. 1) 1) Heath I.Women in medicine BMJ 2004;329:412-413 (21 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7463.412 2) Stagnaro-Neri M., Stagnaro S., Semeiotica Biofisica del torace, della circolazione ematica e dell’anticorpopoiesi acuta e cronica. Acta Med. Medit. 13, 25,1997. 3) Stagnaro-Neri M., Stagnaro S. Introduzione alla Semeiotica Biofisica. Il Terreno Oncologico. Travel Factory, Roma, 2004. www.travelfactory.it 4) Stagnaro-Neri M., Stagnaro S., Semeiotica Biofisica: valutazione clinica del picco precoce della secrezione insulinica di base e dopo stimolazione tiroidea, surrenalica, con glucagone endogeno e dopo attivazione del sistema renina-angiotesina circolante e tessutale – Acta Med. Medit. 13, 99,1997. 5) Stagnaro S. Depression, Anxiety and Psychosis. B C Medical Journal, Volume 43, Number 6, page 321, July-August,2001. 6) Stagnaro S. Diet and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2002 Jan 24;346(4):297-298. [PubMed –indexed for MEDLINE]. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder Medical-Journals.com
Send response to journal:
|
Let us get the facts right, first. Prof Black,CBE was reported as saying [1], “In Russia, medicine is an almost entirely female profession. They are paid less and they are almost ignored by government. They have lost influence as a body that had competency, skills and a professional ethic. They have become just another part of the workforce. It is a case of downgrading professionalism." Dr Heath,CBE says “it is highly likely that Carol Black is right…”[2] by comparing the substantial progress in sexual equality and women empowerment in some European countries which Prof Black did not even faintly rely on to support her argument. So, is Dr Heath trying to tell us, when Prof Black was comparing the UK situation with Russia that she was really trying to highlight the poorer progress in sexual equality in the UK compared to Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, the Netherlands, and Germany? What is clearly coming out of Prof Black’s remarks is that she dislikes female dominance in the medical profession for the fear of losing its power and influence. I would say that that is simply a fear; for an example, what is happening in the police force and prison service [3] hardly supports the fears expressed by Prof Black. Further, just look at the increasing dominance of females in the British parliament and the government; are those females making a lesser impact and contribution than their male counterparts? If females have begun to out number their male counterparts either in medicine, other professions, or in any particular workforce, then that is a good indicator that segregation is easing-off to some extent. Therefore, the UK’s anti-discrimination legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Equal Pay Act 1970 must have had some positive impact on the growing female-dominance in medicine. Moreover, other favourable European legislation (eg. Equal Treatment Directive, European Council Recommendation on Child Care etc) is bound to assist female doctors to reach positions of power and influence which were previously dominated, and at times surreptitiously reserved, for their male counterparts. After all, no one should encourage unlawful discrimination either directly or indirectly. People in privileged and influential positions should be more careful when addressing sensitive issues in a multicultural society—I hope, Prof Black would agree. References [1] The medical time bomb: ‘too many women doctors’; The Independent;2 August 2004 ( http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?st ory=546980&host=3&dir=59&dir=59&host=3 ) --accessed 20 August 2004 [2] Iona Heath. Women in medicine BMJ 2004; 329: 412-413 [3] Ilangaratne J. An Open Response to Prof Carol Black,BMJ Rapid Response,15 August 2004 ( http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7461/308#71066 )-- accessed 20 August 2004 Competing interests: Deslike unlawful discrimination |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Deborah J Verran, Transplant Surgeon Royal Prince Alfred HospitalSydney, NSW 2050 Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Iona Heath has made a very important point in countering the recently reported interview of Professor Carol Black. Surely the medical profession of the near future should consist of a healthy representation of all sectors of society and this includes not just women but minorities as well. This diversity should lead to more appropriate advocacy on medical issues troubing to the community coming from within the profession. It then follows on that increasing diversity should in fact lead to a reinvigoration of the medical profession and as a direct result perhaps, an improvement in the status of the profession as viewed by the community at large. We should all be welcoming of an increased number of women and ethnic minorities coming into the medical profession and aim to be as supportive as possible in their endeavours. Diversity surely is the key to enriching the profession in a number of ways, not only status. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph . C . Obi, Professor Of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Research ; College Of Natural Medicine , Larnarca , Cyprus , European Union . (www.CollegeNaturalMedicine.org)
Send response to journal:
|
Perhaps 'Exceedingly Senior Female Clinicians' should 'Ethically Expend' a little bit more of their 'Vibrant Menopausal Energies' on 'Appropriately Supporting' their 'Much Younger Female Colleagues' ; instead of 'Daintily Shutting The Escape-Hatch' just as soon as their 'Gracefully Ageing Bones' have 'Ardently Managed' to 'Safely Wriggle Through'. Competing interests: Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM (Dublin) FRIPH (UK) FACAM (USA) also serves as Provost at the Royal College of Alternative Medicine (RCAM) , Dublin ; where an Interdisciplinary Revalidation Initiative (IRI) has recently been proposed for Seasoned Practitioners in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Please kindly visit www.RoyalCAM.org for more details. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
naheed nabi, Lecturer,Family Medicine Aga Khan university hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
Send response to journal:
|
Women in Medicine I was surprised to read the comments of a person like Professor Carol Black, that increasing the number of women in medicine might lead to the profession losing influence and status. I am sure that Professor Black will be aware about the facts that in spite of non acceptance of women status in different segments of life including the developed Countries like sexual inequality, resistance to women empowerment, gender pay gap in hourly earnings and non supportive attitudes of spouses, male colleages and socio cultural barriers, still women are able to perform much better most of the time. Women are proving themselves in all fields of life, including as head of states of many countries. They are more committed, more intellectuals, sincere with caring and supportive attitudes towards patients. At the same time they more successfully manage their families along with professional responsibilities. Still I am not sure why Professor Black has doubts? Naheed Nabi Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kingsley R. Browne, Law Professor Wayne State University Law School, Detroit, MI 48202
Send response to journal:
|
In responding to Professor Carol Black’s concern that the increasing feminization of medicine will result in a reduction of the profession’s status, Dr. Iona Heath expresses a number of widely held, but inaccurate, ideas about women in the workplace. Most centrally, she views women not as free actors but instead as the acted-upon. Family responsibilities “fall” disproportionately on women so that fewer women than men with small children are employed, many women are “obliged” to work part time, and women do different work from men because society has erected “a tacit classification of occupations as being more suitable for either men or women.” All of these factors, she says, reflect society’s failure to value men and women equally. According to Dr. Heath, when occupations become increasingly female, men unchivalrously abandon them, and she blames the erosion of the status of professions on the free market. The “first and foremost” antidote to that decreasing status is to make available the level of state support for children that is available in the countries she identifies as having “made genuine progress toward women’s empowerment.” All occupations should “seek to mirror the demography of society, recruiting men and women proportionately from the whole population and affording them genuine choice and equality of opportunity.” Only then “will status and gender finally become disconnected.” There is so much to disagree with in this assessment that it is difficult to know where to start. It entirely neglects the many legitimate factors that lead to sex differences in earnings and occupational choice. Women, on average, earn less than men not only because they work fewer hours, but also because they have less job-related schooling, have less job experience, work in less-risky jobs, have more career interruptions, are less willing to relocate for a job, and attach less weight than men to salary levels when selecting a job. The argument also neglects the fact that men and women differ substantially in occupational interests, and these differences in interest lead men and women not only to select different occupations but also to select different subfields within an occupation.1 The criticism of men’s desertion of occupations as they become predominantly female is misplaced for two reasons. First, it is simply axiomatic that as an occupation becomes increasingly female, it necessarily becomes decreasingly male; it cannot be otherwise. Second, the argument implies that men reject occupations as they become increasingly female specifically because of their sex composition. That argument confuses correlation with causation. Often women move into an occupation and men move out because of changes in the occupation itself. For example, in the United States2 (and Canada3), pharmacy has become an increasingly female profession, not because the entry of women has made the profession less attractive to men but rather because the profession has changed from one in which private-sector pharmacists were small-business owners to one in which they are increasingly employees of large chain drugstores. Men are more likely to favor the autonomy and entrepreneurial opportunities of business ownership, while women like the regular hours, lower risk, and opportunities for temporary withdrawal from the labor force and for part- time work that come from employment. Thus, both men and women are reacting to changes in the profession; men are not reacting to women. Dr. Heath’s argument also neglects sex differences in the desire for day-to-day involvement in children’s lives. Many new mothers actually do not want to work when their children are young. The fact that only 52% of mothers of children under 5 years old work, compared to 91% of fathers, cannot plausibly be viewed as a measure of victimization without knowing how these figures relate to the preferences of mothers and fathers. Moreover, the complaint that many women are “obliged” to work part-time ignores the fact that many women, even those without dependent children, prefer part-time work, including many women who work full-time but would rather work part-time.4 Also, men care more than women about high earnings and obtaining high-status positions, and they are willing to do more, including sacrificing family time, in order to get them.5 The problem is not, as Heath implies, that now only women must “choose between personal commitments and professional power”; the problem, if it is a problem, is that men are more willing to make that choice in favor of professional power. The notion that increasing state support for childbearing and child rearing will improve the status of women in the workplace is also misguided. If anything, policies that facilitate childbearing tend to attenuate women’s attachment to the workplace, as they tend to increase fertility,6 which does not augur well for the standard statistical measures of workplace equality. Although Dr. Heath criticizes the unenlightened policies of the United Kingdom in comparison to the seven countries identified as having made “substantial progress towards sexual equality,” those countries actually lag behind the United Kingdom in a number of key respects. On the only employment-related measure used to assess that “substantial progress” (percentage of workforce that is female), the United Kingdom was exceeded by only two nations, Iceland and Sweden.7 Sweden, which outscored the United Kingdom by a percentage point (51 percent female versus 50 percent female) also, of course, has notoriously generous parental-leave, child care, and other benefits. However, those benefits are associated with the highest level of occupational segregation in Europe, because so much of the female labor force is employed in one of the “caring” occupations subsidized by the Swedish welfare state.8 Moreover, many Swedish women work part-time, not because they are “obliged” to work part-time rather than full-time, but because wives who would prefer not to work at all must work at least part-time because the tax levels necessary to fund the generous social programs make it very difficult for a family to get by on a single income.9 The Netherlands, another nation to which Dr. Heath compares the UK unfavorably, has a larger wage gap, a greater proportion of women working part-time, and a higher rate of occupational segregation than the UK.10 Although Dr. Heath seems to blame the free market for erosion of the status of the medical profession, that reduction in status is likely less a consequence of the free market than it is of increasing oversight of the profession. In the United States, for example, many physicians are leaving the profession because of dissatisfaction with the increasing bureaucratization and decreasing compensation and autonomy that comes with increased government regulation, constraints imposed by a third-party payment system, and the threat of malpractice suits.11 Despite this trend, however, Canadian doctors continue to stream across the border because the US medical system is still substantially more free-market-oriented than Canada’s nationalized system.12 Dr. Heath’s final prescription – that complete parity of wages and occupations should be the goal in order to “afford genuine choice and equality of opportunity”– is self-contradictory. Free choice and equality of opportunity do not lead to identical outcomes in the workplace. For a variety of reasons, including important biological ones, men and women have different preferences.13 When they are allowed to act on those different preferences, there are different outcomes. Only by constraining the operation of preferences – the antithesis of affording “genuine choice” – can workplace outcomes be rendered identical. Notes 1. Browne, K. Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality. Rutgers University Press, 2002. 2. Betz, M., and O’Connell, L. Gender and work: A look at sex differences among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmacy Education 1987;51:39-43. 3. Tanner, J., Cockerill, R., Barnsley, J., and Williams, A.P. Gender and income in pharmacy: Human capital and gender stratification theories revisited. British Journal of Sociology 1999;50:97-117. 4. Hakim, C. Five feminist myths about women’s employment. British Journal of Sociology 1995;46:429-455. 5. Browne, K. R. An evolutionary account of women’s workplace status. Managerial and Decision Economics, 1998;19:427-440. 6. Buttner, T., and Lutz, W. Estimating fertility responses to policy measures in the German Democratic Republic. Population and Development Review 1990;16:539-555; Zhang, J., Quan, J., and Van Meerbergen, P. The effect of tax-transfer policies on fertility in Canada, 1921-88. Journal of Human Resources 1994;29:181-201. 7. United Nations Development Fund for Women. Progress of the world’s women 2002. Gender equality and the millennium development goals. http://www.unifem.org/filesconfirmed/10/8_04_section_01.pdf (accessed 22 Aug 2004). 8. Anker, R. Gender and jobs: sex segregation of occupations in the world. Geneva: International Labour Organisation, 1998. 9. Hoem, B., and Hoem, J. The impact of women’s employment on second and third births in modern Sweden. Population Studies 1989;43:47- 67. 10. Clarke, S. Earnings of men and women in the EU: the gap narrowing but only slowly. Statistics in Focus. Eurostat, http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print- product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=KS-NK-01-005-__-I- EN&mode=download (accessed 22 August, 2004); European Commission, Part -time employment, http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equ_opp/statistics/parttime.pdf (accessed 22 August, 2004); European Commission, Gender segregation in the labour market, http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equ_opp/statistics/segregation.pdf (accessed 22 August, 2004). 11. Zuger, A. Dissatisfaction with medical practice. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;350(1):69-75. 12. Nickerson, C. Disgruntled Canadian physicians flock to US. Boston Globe, April 8, 1996. 13. Browne, K. Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality. Rutgers University Press, 2002. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
susanne mccabe, retired cf23 4pf
Send response to journal:
|
The phenomena of ambitious women pulling up the drawbridge behind them rather than encouraging other women to join them, is not a new phenomena in any profession - but it is not what feminism is about as most male respondents seem to agree. After such blatant sexist statements it would be sensible for younger women applicant to medical schools, their teachers and politicians to monitor carefully their success rate. Those in influential positions which Iona Heath and Carol Black identify with, are also those who often sit on committees and interview panels. Hopefully their views will not put younger women or more enlightened men for that matter, off a potential career in medicine. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Des Spence, GP Glasgow G20 9DR
Send response to journal:
|
What is status? I find difficult to understand exactly what status means and how relevant this is to those us deemed to be “low” status work like family practice. To simply express “status” in terms that are measurable like pay, job position and head counts does not address the real themes which are personal and professional contentment. The eroding social status of doctors should be viewed positively for it has been our professional vanity that has divided our profession and alienated our patients. The influx of people from lower social classes and women has done much to break the old hierarchy and the destructive “status culture” over the past 30 years. Status is an individual perspective and should never be confused with mere “position”. Childcare, also, is not a panacea to reach professional equality and many doctors positively choose to parent their own children. The impact of these commitments long out last those grey flaking portraits that hang in the Royal Colleges. To reach true equality lies paradoxically by challenging the largely unresearched gender role of men in society. Are men cardboard cut figures: inarticulate; cold; aggressive; uncaring; incapable of loving or caring for their children? Is it time men be allowed and encouraged to emulate women’s dual role? In order that that this happens , however, society and the profession needs to tackle its “stereotype” of maleness and ditch some of the out dated assumptions that gender is a one way street. Finally, women have helped “humanised” our profession. We should strive to have a profession dominated by doctors who actually care and not encourage more self obsessed and status driven applicants. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr Clarissa Fabre, GP TN22 5XZ
Send response to journal:
|
Your editorial in the BMJ of August 21 on the increasing number of women in medicine and the resulting loss in status and influence of the profession was disappointing. You state that the hourly earnings of male and female doctors are very different. This is not surprising, given the higher percentage of men currently in senior positions. Are the hourly earnings of male and female SHOs, registrars and new consultants different? The answer is obviously no. The number of female consultants has risen by more than 50% in the last 10 years and is set to continue to do so. What is the logic in saying that a feminised profession loses status and influence? We cannot compare ourselves with totalitarian societies such as the Soviet Union. Women do not have to choose between personal commitments and professional power. In a working life of 40 years, it is not a matter of great significance for a woman to spend a few years working less than full-time for family reasons. Women are able to reach the top of the profession, given the right structures and the removal of discriminatory practices and sexist attitudes. Dr Clarissa Fabre
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Francesco Carelli, EURACT Council ,National Representative - RCGP 43017 - GMC 4256757 - Associate Editor IJM 20123- Milan - Italy
Send response to journal:
|
General Practice is among the most popular choices for women in medicine. Key professional issues for women are job satisfaction, balancing work and personal life, autonomy, availability of flexible and part-time work, affordability of professional expenses, fair remuneration, and having voice in decision-making. At the same time we have factors as psychological barriers, rigidity in career structures, stereotypes of society. Women that have families and children sometimes face a difficult dilemma due to their multiple roles. So, really it's not yet time to see professions as not of value ( money value ) when with a female prevalence, the problem in GP is flexibility for all. We have to study possibilities to reduce gender inequalities and support GP's life as a woman and all the ways forward resolving as best as possible the related problems, but the gender problem is really opening to the necessity of flexiblity for all. The profession is not loosing value because of gender but because of lack of investements...and flexibility asks for more investements. Women bring and awake specific qualities to General Practice, and either WONCA ( with questionnaires and with simposia ) either UEMO with clear statements are supporting this. reference F. Carelli - Women in General Practice - Simposium at WONCA 2004 in Amsterdam ( as contributors: Amanda Howe, Egle Zebiene, Mateja Bulc, Luisa Valle, Mladenka Vrcic-Keglevic ) Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
SF Gray, President of Medical Women's Federation MWF Central Office, WC1H 9HX
Send response to journal:
|
We would strongly support Iona Heath’s statement in her editorial on Women in Medicine1 that all occupations should seek to mirror the demography of society. Provision of child care support at levels found in Scandinavian countries would greatly support women in medicine to achieve their potential. However, other specific progress also needs to be made on improving access to flexible training at Specialist Registrar level, which is highly variable by region and speciality(1). Many women doctors (and their male partners, many of whom are also doctors) have or wish to have families, and we know that hours of work and working conditions are a key factor in the career choices made by young doctors(2). Career paths for men and women doctors must allow for flexibility in the early years for a less than 24 hour commitment to medicine. However, young children grow up rapidly, and in a forty year working life women doctors are well able to achieve and function very effectively in top posts and professional activities provided they are supported during this critical time. We cannot afford to squander the passion, commitment and intelligence of young doctors by not providing that flexibility at critical times for both parents. Doctors from both sexes are looking for a better work-life balance(3). We have moved beyond the world where it was only possible for women to have a career in medicine by sacrificing family and children on the altar of ambition. Women doctors want successful medical careers and a family life, and a social climate where childcare is shared with the father, and they are showing it can be done. Increasingly both sexes are looking to make sure there is a work life balance. Medicine is now longer a “mans world” and we accept that if women become the majority then, ipso facto, the influence of the profession will decline as a consequence. Why? To quote Wordsworth “ tis against that that we are fighting ”. The country needs a high calibre, balanced profession in terms of gender, ethnicity and speciality. We all, male and female, need a work- life balance but above all we want expert medical practitioners, exercising their professional talents for the enhancement of society’s health at all levels. We need to address the real issues in medicine, that those of equity in a modern Britain. 1. Gray S, Alexander K, Eaton J. Equal Opportunity for all? Trends in flexible training 1995-2001. Medical Teacher 2004;26: 256-9 2. BMA Cohort Study 1995. Ninth Report. BMA June 2004 3. Dumelow C, Littlejohns P, Griffiths S. Relation between a career and family life for English hospital consultants: qualitative, semistructured interview study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1437-40 Competing interests: MWF is a charity which aims to advacne the personal and professional development of women in medicine |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Steve Iliffe, Reader in General Practice Royal Free & UCL Medical School, London NW3 2PF
Send response to journal:
|
I think that Iona Heath was right to defend Professor Carol Black against charges of harming the interests of women in medicine, but I find her reasons for doing so difficult to accept. Iona Heath’s argument seems to be that women’s lower position in the labour market is evidence of discrimination, that the modern nation is made up of a triad of state, market and civil society functioning independently of each other, that the medical profession is a pillar of civil society, and that doctors are naturally placed to be advocates of the relatively powerless. Therefore a predominance of a group with low market value (women) in an important component of civil society will weaken its independence and its role. I cannot see why that should be so, and suspect the premises of the argument may be wrong. Professor Browne’s response weakens the connection between labour market place and discrimination, and the rest of the argument is equally challengeable. Are the institutions of civil society independent of state or market, or are they often defined by their relationship to both? Does the medical profession shape medicine independent of other interests, or is it both an instrument of state policy and linked to the market through the pharmaceutical industry and its involvement in commercial medicine? What are we doing when we choose to argue that doctors are pillars of civil society, and not (for example) part of an ideological state apparatus? Similarly, why choose to define medicine’s role as advocate of the powerless when we could, for example, define it as a conspiracy against the laity? (An easy one. The latter is uncomfortable, and the former is self-congratulatory and self-serving) Professor Black may have inadvertently caused all this political confusion by suggesting that medicine in the former USSR was a low status profession because it was feminised. The history may be more complex, because the demotion of medicine was a deliberate government policy, mirroring the promotion of engineering, and was reinforced by the abolition of separate professional organisations for doctors, who were represented by generic health worker bodies. Doctors’ incomes reflected their relatively lower social status and their inability to bargain as a craft. Add to this the post-war shortage of men and feminisation becomes understandable as the outcome, not the cause, of professional weakness. The core of Professor Black’s argument seems clear. In the coming struggle between state and market for dominance in health service organisation, the medical profession will need good leaders if it is to obtain for itself the best outcome. Given the tendency for many women doctors to divide their efforts between work and family in a way not replicated by men, a cadre of leaders focussed on the profession’s interests will be needed. Men will therefore contribute more than women to this cadre, so having enough men in medicine becomes an important political issue. The next question is: will enough men want to play this role, or will the disengagement of generation X continue? Competing interests: None declared |
|||