Gerhardt U
Justus Liebig Medical School, Department of Medical Sociology, Giessen, F.R.G.
Soc Sci Med. 1989;29(6):721-8. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(89)90151-2.
Jack Elinson raises somewhat rhetorical questions about the value of medical care and medical sociology. Behind them is a serious concern with the type and scope of medicalisation in modern society as well as its sociological criticism. This raises the issue of whether the various theoretical images of medicine and the patient which sociology provides are able to account for the effect of the social environment upon morbidity and mortality as shown, for instance, by the Alameda County Study. Three theoretically distinct approaches are discussed in detail, structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism and conflict theory. These characterise medical sociology over the last 30 years. They elucidate more clearly Elinson's own image of medicine and the patient. But none seems to match his standpoint vis-a-vis the medicalisation of care which refrains from citing psychological forces but emphasises the availability of good medical services.
杰克·埃林森就医疗保健和医学社会学的价值提出了一些带有修辞色彩的问题。在这些问题背后，是对现代社会医学化的类型和范围以及其社会学批判的严肃关切。这就引发了一个问题，即社会学所提供的关于医学和患者的各种理论形象，是否能够解释社会环境对发病率和死亡率的影响，比如阿拉米达县研究所示。文中详细讨论了三种理论上截然不同的方法，即结构功能主义、符号互动主义和冲突理论。这些方法代表了过去30年的医学社会学。它们更清晰地阐明了埃林森自己对医学和患者的看法。但似乎没有一种能与他在护理医学化问题上的立场相匹配，他的立场不提及心理因素，而是强调优质医疗服务的可及性。
