Feminism and Healthcare: Toward a Feminist Pragmatist Model of Healthcare Provision

  • Claudia GillbergEmail author
  • Geoffrey Jones
Reference work entry


This chapter covers a range of topics pertaining to the ontological, epistemological, and ethical intricacies, complications, and possibilities of providing quality healthcare to women patients regardless of disability, race, ethnicity, and class by using empirical examples of certain diseases. Methodological concepts through reflections on subjectivity and objectivity are presented as contested issues, and radical objectivity, a concept comprising subjectivity, objectivity, and intersubjectivity, is proposed as a knowledge paradigm that allows healthcare personnel and patients to make knowledge claims that are mutually recognized as valid. Three models of healthcare, paternalistic, person-centered, and feminist pragmatist, are presented, outlining the specific problems inherent in each model of healthcare provision. The paternalistic model allows for no agency on the patients’ part, elevating healthcare personnel, specifically doctors, to authoritative knowers. The person-centered model of healthcare grants some shared responsibility between healthcare personnel and patients, and some concessions are made toward patients as knowers. In the feminist pragmatist model, healthcare personnel and patients commit to equal relationships. Gender equality and gender equity are identified as insufficient tools for organizational change, and theories of professions are drawn on to deliberate about change at the systemic level.


Feminism Methodology Ontology Epistemology Paternalism Pragmatism 


  1. Andrist L. A feminist model for women’s health care. Nurs Inq. 1997;4:268–74. Scholar
  2. Anjum R. Evidence based or person centered? An ontological debate. Eur J Person Cent Health. 2016;4(2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bezes P, Demazière D, Le Bianic T, Paradeise C, Normand R, Benamouzig D, et al. New public management and professionals in the public sector: what new patterns beyond opposition? Sociologie du Travail. 2012;54:1–52. Scholar
  4. Bosely S, Glenza J, Davidson H. Endometriosis: the hidden suffering of millions of women revealed. The Guardian. 2015. Accessed 15 Oct 2017.
  5. Brown L. Endometriosis treatment ‘unacceptable’ and women aren’t diagnosed quickly enough. BBC Newsbeat. 2017. Accessed 27 Sept 2017.
  6. Butler CC, Evans M, Greaves D, Simpson S. Medically unexplained symptoms: the biopsychosocial model found wanting. J Royal Soc Med. 2004;97(5):219–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calderone KL. The influence of gender on the frequency of pain and sedative medication administered to postoperative patients. Sex Roles. 1990;23(11):713–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cody WK. Paternalism in nursing and healthcare: central issues and their relation to theory. Nurs Sci Q. 2003;4:288–96. Scholar
  9. Cook T, Boote J, Buckley N, Vougioukalou S, Wright M. Accessing participatory research impact and legacy: developing the evidence base for participatory approaches in health research. Educational Action Research, 2017;25:473–488. Scholar
  10. Duffy S. A fair society? How the cuts target disabled people. Resource document, The Centre for Welfare Reform. 2013. Accessed 20 Sept 2017.
  11. Edwards J. PACE team response shows a disregard for the principles of science. J Health Psychol. 2017;22:1155–8. Scholar
  12. Epstein S. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. San Diego: University of California Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  13. Evans T, Mafubelu D. Women and health. Today’s evidence tomorrow’s agenda. Report. World Health Organisation. 2009. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
  14. Fenton S. How sexist stereotypes mean doctors ignore women’s pain. The Independent. 2016a. Accessed 27 Oct 2017.
  15. Fenton S. Period pain is officially as bad as a heart attack – so why have doctors ignored it? The answer is simple. Online article, The Independent. 2016b. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.
  16. Freidson E. How dominant are the professions? In: Hafferty FW, McKinlay JB, editors. The changing medical profession: an international perspective. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993. p. 54–66.Google Scholar
  17. Fricker M, Hornsby J. The Cambridge companion to feminism in philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  18. Geraghty K. ‘PACE-gate’: when clinical trial evidence meets open data access. J Health Psychol. 2016;22:1106–12. Scholar
  19. Gillberg C, Vo LC. Contributions from pragmatist perspectives towards an understanding of knowledge and learning in organisations. Philos Manag. 2014;13:33–51. Scholar
  20. Gillberg G. A methodological interpretation of feminist pragmatism. In: Hamington M, Bardwell-Jones C, editors. Contemporary feminist pragmatism. New York: Routledge; 2012. p. 217–37.Google Scholar
  21. Goldin R. PACE: the research that sparked a patient rebellion and challenged medicine. Sense about Science USA. 2016. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  22. Govender V, Penn-Kekana L. Gender biases and discrimination: a review of health care interpersonal interactions. Women and Gender Equity Knowledge Network. 2007. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.
  23. Hafferty FW, Light DW. Professional dynamics and the changing nature of medical work. J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36:132–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herr K, Anderson GL. The action research dissertation. A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoffman DE, Tarzian AJ. The girl who cried pain: a bias against women in the treatment of pain. J Law Med Ethics. 2001;29:13–27. Scholar
  26. Hsu J. The relative efficiency of public and private service delivery. World Health Report. World Health Organisation. 2010. Accessed 15 Oct 2017.
  27. Humphries KH, Izadnegahdar M, Sedlak T, Saw J, Johnston N, Schenck-Gustafsson K. et al, Sex differences in cardiovascular disease – impact on care and outcomes. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2017. Scholar
  28. Kennedy A. Authors of our own misfortune? The problems with psychogenic explanations for physical illnesses. South Willingham: The Village Digital Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  29. Klein J. Open moments and surprise endings: historical agency and the workings of narrative in ‘the social transformation of American medicine’. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2004;29:621–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lian OS, Robson C. ‘It’s incredible how much I’ve had to fight.’ Negotiating medical uncertainty in clinical encounters. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2017;12. Scholar
  31. Light DW. The medical profession and organizational change: from professional dominance to countervailing power. In: Bird C, Conrad P, Fremont AM, editors. Handbook of medical sociology. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River; 2000. p. 201–16.Google Scholar
  32. McDonnell O, Lohan M, Hyde A, Porter S. Social theory, health & healthcare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McEvedy CP, Beard AW. Royal Free epidemic of 1955: a reconsideration. Br Med J. 1970;1(5687):7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mickle K. Why are so many women being misdiagnosed? Glamour. 2017. Accessed 18 Oct 2017.
  35. Minnich EK. Transforming knowledge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell S, Schlesinger M. Managed care and gender disparities in problematic health care experiences. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(5):1489–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nott SM. Body beautiful? Feminist perspectives on the World Health Organisation. In: Morris A, Nott S, editors. Well women. The gendered nature of health care provision. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2002. p. 145–64.Google Scholar
  38. Nott SM, Morris A. All in the mind: feminism and health care. In: Morris A, Nott S, editors. Well women. The gendered nature of health care provision. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2002. p. 1–20.Google Scholar
  39. Payton M. Doctors are failing to spot heart attacks in women – these are the symptoms. The Independent. 2016. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.
  40. Pescosolido B. Theories and the rise and fall of the medical profession. In: Medical sociology on the move. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 173–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Racaniello V. No ‘recovery’ in PACE trial, new analysis finds. Virology blog. 2016. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  42. Reid C, Gillberg C. Feminist participatory action research. In: Brydon-Miller M, Coghlan D, editors. The SAGE encyclopaedia of action research. New York: SAGE; 2014. p. 343–6.Google Scholar
  43. Risberg G, Johansson EE, Hamberg K. A theoretical model for analysing gender bias in medicine. Int J Equity Health. 2009;8(2009). Scholar
  44. Robson C, Lian OS. ‘Blaming, shaming, humiliation’: stigmatising medical interactions among people with non-epileptic seizures. Wellcome Open Research. 2017. Scholar
  45. Sherwin S. No longer patient. Feminist ethics & health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  46. Shotwell A. Against purity. Living ethically in compromised times. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  47. Staples S. During ME awareness week we revisit the toxic legacy of McEvedy and Beard. Online article. The ME Association. 2017. Accessed 03 Nov 2017.
  48. Steen L. The wilderness of the medically unexplained. Resource document. theBMJopinion. 2016. Accessed 19 Nov 2017.
  49. Stewart M. Cash not care, the planned demolition of the UK welfare state. London: New Generation Publishing; 2017.Google Scholar
  50. Tasca C, Rapetti M, Carta MG, Fadda B. Women and hysteria in the history of mental health. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2012;8:110–9. Scholar
  51. Webster R. Why Freud was wrong: sin, science and psychoanalysis. London: Harper Collins; 1996.Google Scholar
  52. Webster R. Freud. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson; 2003.Google Scholar
  53. Wendell S. The rejected body. Feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York: Routledge; 1996.Google Scholar
  54. WHO. Road Map for Action (2014–2019). Integrating Equity, Gender, Human Rights, and Social Determinants into the Work of WHO. Report. World Health Organisation. 2015. Accessed 28 Sept 2017.
  55. Wu J, Gale CP, Hall M, Dondo TB, Metcalfe E, Oliver G, et al. Impact of initial hospital diagnosis on mortality for acute myocardial infarction: a National Cohort Study. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2016. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish National Centre for Lifelong Learning (ENCELL)Jonkoping UniversityJönköpingSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Welfare ReformSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations