ÖZ

Bu çalışma, en yaygın tıp teknolojilerinden olan tıbbi görüntüleme cihazlarının Türkiye’de hekimlerin mesleki bağımsızlığı üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Tıbbi görüntüleme cihazlarının sunduğu olanaklar, hekimlerin otoritesini ve mesleki bağımsızlığını güçlendirmekte önemli bir rol oynamış, fakat aynı zamanda sağlık harcamalarının artmasına neden olmuştur. Bu harcamaları kontrol altına almak için 1970’lerden başlayarak sağlık hizmeti sunumu ve finansmanında gerçekleştirilen değişiklikler, hekimlerin, aralarında teknoloji kullanımı da olmak üzere, faaliyetlerini kontrol altına almayı ve denetlemeyi de amaçlamıştır. Bu değişikliklerin hekimlerin mesleki bağımsızlığı nasıl etkilediği, tıp sosyolojisi ve meslekler sosyolojisi alanında önemli bir yer tutmuştur. Bu çerçeveden yola çıkan çalışma, Ankara’da uzman hekimlerle yapılmış görüşmelere dayanarak, tıbbi görüntüleme cihazı kullanımı bağlamında hekimlerin mesleki bağımsızlıklarının boyutunu ve cihaz kullanımının hekimlik pratikleri üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Çalışma, bu inceleme için yalnızca teknolojinin hızı ve doğasını değil, hekimlerin sağlık hizmetleri alanındaki diğer aktörlerle kurdukları ilişkileri ve sağlık sistemin yapısal özelliklerini de ele almak gerektiğini ileri sürmektedir.

Kaynakça

• Bloom, S. (2002). The Word as Scalpel: A History of Medical Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bury, M. (2009). The British Health Care System, W. C. Cockerham (Ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Medical Sociology. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Bynum, W. (2014). Tıp Tarihi. Ankara: Dost Kitabevi.
• Casper, M. J. ve Morrison, D. R. (2010). Medical Sociology and Technology: Critical Engagements. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1_suppl), 120–132.
• Cockerham, W. C. (2016). Medical Sociology. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Dixon – Woods, M., Yeung, K. ve Bosk, C. L. (2011). Why is UK Medicine No Longer a Self-Regulating Profession? The Role of Scandals Involving “Bad Apple” Doctors”. Social Science & Medicine, 73(10), 1452-1459.
• Elliott, P. (1972). The Sociology of Professions. Londra: Macmillan.
• Elston, M. A. (1991). The Politics of Professional Power: Medicine in a Changing Health Service. J. Gabe, M. Calnan, M. Bury (Eds.), The Sociology of the Health Services. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Evetts, J. (2002). New Directions in State and International Professional Occupations: Discretionary Decision Making and Acquired Regulation. Work, Employment and Society, 16 (2), 341 – 353.
• Freidson, E. (1970). Profession of Medicine: A Study of Applied Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Freidson, E. (1988). Professional Powers: A Study of Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Freund, P.E.S., McGuire, M.B. ve Podhurst, L.S. (2003). Health, Illness and The Social Body: A Critical Sociology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Funck, E. (2012). Professional Archetype Change: The Effects of Restricted Professional Autonomy. Professions and Professionalism, 2 (2), 1-18.
• Goldstein Jutel, A. (2011). Putting a Name on It: Diagnosis in the Contemporary Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Gorman, E. ve Sandefur, R. (2011). ‘Golden Age’, Quiescence, and Revival How the Sociology of Professions Became the Study of Knowledge-Based Work. Work and Occupations, 38 (3), 275-302.
• Green, J. ve Thorogood, N. (1998). Analysing Health Policy: A Sociological Approach. Londra ve New York: Longman.
• Hardey, M. (1999). Doctor in the House: The Internet as a Source of Lay Health Knowledge and the Challenges to Expertise. Sociology of Health & Illness, 2 (6), 820-835.
• Hardey, M. (2001). ‘E-health’: The Internet and the Transformation of Patients into Consumers and Producers of Health Knowledge. Information, Communication & Society, 4 (3), 388-405.
• Harrison, S. (2002). New Labour, Modernisation and the Medical Labour Process. Journal of Social Policy, 31 (3), 465-485.
• Haug, M. H. (1973). Deprofessionalization: An Alternative Hypothesis for the Future. Sociological Review Monographs, 20, 195-211.
• Haug, M. H. (1988). A Re-Examination of the Hypothesis of Physician Deprofessionalization. The Milbank Quarterly 66, suppl. 2: 48-56.
• Haug, M. H. ve Lavin, B. (1978). Method of Payment for Medical Care and Public Attitudes Toward Physician Authority. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 19 (3), 279-291.
• Hoogland, J. ve Jochemsen, H. (2000). Professional Autonomy and the Normative Structure of Medical Practice. Theoretical Medicine, 21, 457-475.
• Jamous, H. ve Peloille, B. (1970). Professions or Self-perpetuating System; Changes in the French University-Hospital System. Jackson, J. (Ed.), Professions and Professionalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Klein, R. (1995). The State and the Profession: The Politics of the Double Bed. BMJ, 301, 700-702.
• Larson, M. S. (1977). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Liberati, E. G. (2017). Separating, Replacing, Intersecting: The Influence of Context on the Construction of the Medical-Nursing Boundary. Social Science & Medicine, 172, 135–143.
• Light, D. W. (2010). Health – Care Professions, Markets and Countervailing Powers. C. E. Bird, P. Conrad, A. M. Fremont, S. Timmermans (Ed.), Handbook of Medical Sociology, 270 – 289. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
• Lin, K. Y. (2014). Physicians’ Perceptions of Autonomy Across Practice Types: Is Autonomy in Solo Practice a Myth?. Social Science & Medicine, 100, 21–29.
• Lu, J. (2016). Will Medical Technology Deskill Doctors?. International Education Studies, 9 (7), 130-134.
• McKinlay, J. B., ve Arches, J. (1985). Towards the Proletarianization of Physicians. International Journal of Health Services, 5 (2), 161-195.
• Mead, N. ve Bower, P. (2000). Patient-centredness: A Conceptual Framework and Review of the Empirical Literature. Social Science & Medicine 51 (7), 1087-1110.
• Navarro, V. (1988). Professional Dominance or Proletarianization?: Neither. The Milbank Quarterly 66 (Suppl.2), 57-75.
• Neuberger, J. (2000). The Educated Patient: New Challenges for the Medical Profession. Journal of Internal Medicine 247, 6-10.
• Oppenheimer, M. (1973). The Proletarianization of the Professional, The Sociological Review, 20 (S1), 213-227.
• Parsons, T. (1939). The Professions and Social Structure. Social Forces, 17 (4), 457-467.
• Potter, S. J. ve McKinlay, J. B. (2005). From a Relationship to Encounter: An Examination of Longitudinal and Lateral Dimensions in the Doctor-Patient Relationship. Social Science and Medicine, 61: 465-79.
• Ritzer, G. (1975). Professionalization, Bureaucratization and Rationalization: The Views of Max Weber. Social Forces, 53 (4), 627-634.
• Ritzer, G. ve Walczak, D. (1988). Rationalization and the Deprofessionalization of Physicians. Social Forces, 67 (1), 1-22.
• Saks, M. (1994). Professions and the Public Interest: Medical Power, Altruism and Alternative Medicine. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Schulz, R. ve Harrison, S. (1986). Physician Autonomy in the Federal Republic of Germany, Great Britain and the United States. International Journal of Health and Planning and Management, 2, 335-355.
• Stevens, F. (2009). The Convergence and Divergence of Modern Health Care Systems. W. C. Cockerham (Ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Medical Sociology. Malden, MA ve Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Stoeckle, J. D. (1988). Reflections on Modern Doctoring. The Milbank Quarterly, 66 (Suppl.2), 76-91.
• T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı. (2019). T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık İstatistikleri Yıllığı 2018. Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık Bilgi Sistemleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
• Welch, G. H., Schwartz, L. M. ve Woloshin, S. (2011). Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.