Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 469–478 | Cite as

Why Do Medical Professional Regulators Dismiss Most Complaints From Members of the Public? Regulatory Illiteracy, Epistemic Injustice, and Symbolic Power

  • Orla O’DonovanEmail author
  • Deirdre Madden
Original Research

Abstract

Drawing on an analysis of complaint files that we conducted for the Irish Medical Council (Madden and O’Donovan 2015), this paper offers three possible explanations for the gap between the ubiquity of official commitments to taking patients’ complaints seriously and medical professional regulators’ dismissal—as not warranting an inquiry—of the vast majority of complaints submitted by members of the public. One explanation points to the “regulatory illiteracy” of many complainants, where the remit and threshold of seriousness of regulators is poorly understood by the general public. Another points to possible processes of “institutional epistemic injustice” (Fricker 2007; Anderson 2012) that unjustly undermine the credibility of certain complainants, such as those with low levels of formal education. A third explanation highlights the marginalization of the general public from “symbolic power” (Bourdieu 1989) to define what matters in medical professional regulation. The paper is offered in a spirit of ideas in progress and raising questions rather than definitive insights into the regulatory process.

Keywords

Patients’ complaints Medical professional regulation Regulatory illiteracy Institutional epistemic injustice Symbolic power 

References

  1. Anderson, E. 2012. Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions. Social Epistemology 26(2): 163–173.Google Scholar
  2. Beaupert, F., T. Carney, M. Chiarella, et al. 2014. Regulating healthcare complaints: A literature review. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 27(6): 505–518.Google Scholar
  3. Blease, C., H. Carel, and K. Geraghty. 2017. Epistemic injustice in healthcare encounters: evidence from chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of Medical Ethics 43: 549–557.Google Scholar
  4. Blume, S. 2017. In search of experiential knowledge. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 30(1): 91–103.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory 7(1): 14–25.Google Scholar
  6. Buchman, D., A. Ho, and D. Goldberg. 2017. Investigating trust, expertise, and epistemic injustice in chronic pain. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 14(1): 31–42.Google Scholar
  7. Callon, M. 1999. The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology & Society 4(1): 81–94.Google Scholar
  8. Carel, H., and I. Kidd. 2014. Epistemic injustice in healthcare: A philosophical analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17(4): 529–540.Google Scholar
  9. Carel, H., C. Blease, and K. Geraghty. 2017. Epistemic injustice in healthcare encounters: Evidence from chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of Medical Ethics 43: 549–557.Google Scholar
  10. Crossley, N. 2004. Not being mentally ill: Social movements, system survivors and the oppositional habitus. Anthropology & Medicine 11(2): 161–180.Google Scholar
  11. Douglas, M. 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, S. 1995. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values 20 (4): 408–437.Google Scholar
  13. Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. General Medical Council. 2014. The state of medical education and practice in the UK. London: General Medical Council.Google Scholar
  15. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, H. 1060. To kill a mocking bird. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.Google Scholar
  17. Lupton, D. 1997. Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter. Social Science and Medicine 45(3): 373–381.Google Scholar
  18. Madden, D., and O. O’Donovan. 2015. Qualitative review of complaints received by the Medical Council 2008—2012 and doctors’ responses. Dublin: Medical Council.Google Scholar
  19. Medical Council. 2017. Annual report and financial statements. Dublin: Medical Council.Google Scholar
  20. Medical Council. 2015. Listening to complaints: Learning for good professional practice. Dublin: Medical Council.Google Scholar
  21. ----. No date. Making a complaint about a doctor: A guide for patients. Dublin: Medical Council.Google Scholar
  22. ----. 2012. Preliminary Proceedings Committee Procedures.Google Scholar
  23. O’Regan, E. 2017. Watchdog calls for an overhaul of medical complaints process. The Irish Independent, June 19. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/watchdog-calls-for-an-overhaul-of-medical-complaints-process-35840185.html. Accessed June 19, 2018.
  24. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. 2011. Listening and learning: The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling by the NHS in England 2010–11. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  25. Rabeharisoa, V., and T. Moreira, and M. Akrich. 2014. Evidence-based activism: Patients’ organisations, users’ and activist’s groups in knowledge. BioSocieties 9(2): 111–128.Google Scholar
  26. Salter, B. 2001. Who rules? The new politics of medical regulation. Social Science & Medicine 52: 871–883.Google Scholar
  27. Wynia, M., M. Papadakis, M. Sullivan, and F. Hafferty. 2014. More than a list of values and desired behaviors: A foundational understanding of medical professionalism. Academic Medicine 89(5): 712–714.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Applied Social StudiesUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  2. 2.School of LawUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations