Historisches Seminar, Universität Zürich, Karl-Schmid-Strasse 4, 8006 Zürich, Switzerland.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2010;32(4):453-73.
Based on a discussion of the concept of medicalisation and medical culture in Anglo-American, French-, and German-speaking historiography the paper argues that medical innovation in Europe from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century should be approached in a different way. Instead of asking from the perspective of a too narrow concept of medicalisation why medical innovations were rejected by the population, (medical) historians should analyse medical culture and ask why people should have changed their health and illness behaviour. This conceptual argument is deduced from four empirical examples: the introduction of smallpox vaccination, "medical police," the problem of medical professionalization, and the questions arising around the relations between the healthy/sick and their practitioners.
基于对英美学派、法语学派和德语学派医学史中“医学化”和“医学文化”概念的讨论，本文认为，应从不同的角度来研究欧洲从 16 世纪到 19 世纪中期的医学创新。（医学）历史学家不应该仅仅从过于狭隘的“医学化”概念出发，去追问为什么医疗创新会被民众所拒绝，而应该分析医学文化，并探究人们为什么要改变他们的健康和疾病行为。这一概念性论点是从四个经验性的例子中推导出来的：天花疫苗的引入、“医学警察”、医学专业化的问题以及围绕健康/疾病人群及其从业者之间关系所产生的问题。
