Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:57:21.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Prostatic Imperative and the Social Relations of Medical Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Evan Willis
Evan Willis
Affiliation:
La Trobe University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A sociological approach to medical technology assessment is outlined in this paper, first in general and then with specific reference to controversies surrounding the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to population screening for prostate cancer.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , Fall 1997 , pp. 602 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.The Age, (Melbourne newspaper), 11 28, 1996.Google Scholar
3.Borland, R., Donaghue, N., & Hill, D.Illnesses that Australians most feared in 1986 and 1993. Australian Journal of Public Health 1994, 18, 366–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Prostate cancer screening. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, National health and Medical Research Council, 1996.Google Scholar
4.Broom, D.Damned if we do: Contradictions in women's health care. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1991.Google Scholar
5.Burton, T. Blood test for prostate cancer is raising issues of reliability, drug-industry role. Wall Street Journal, 02 16, 1993.Google Scholar
6.Denis, L. J. To screen or not to screen? Prostate 1992, (suppl. 4), 63–70.Google Scholar
7.Dickson, D.Alternative technology and the politics of technological change. Glasgow: Fontana, 1974.Google Scholar
8.Feightner, J. Screening for prostate cancer. In The Canadian Task Force on Periodic Health Examination. The Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care. Ottawa: Health Canada, 1994.Google Scholar
9.Fletcher, R.Prostate cancer screening and men’s health. Australian Journal of Public Health, 1994, 18, 449–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Gerber, P.How far should we investigate and treat prostate cancer: A lawyer's perspective (letter). Medical Journal of Australia, 1994, 160, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Gohagan, J. K., Prorok, P. C., Kramer, B. S., & Cornett, J. E.The prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer, 1995, 75, 1869–73.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Green, C. J., Hadorn, D., Bassett, A., & Kazanjian, A. Prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer. British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment Discussion Paper Series. Vancouver: BCHOTA 93:6D, 1993.Google Scholar
13.Kolata, G. How demand surged for prostate test. New York Times, 09 29, 1993, C12.Google Scholar
14.LaTour, B., & Woolgar, S.Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979.Google Scholar
15.McKinlay, J.The business of good doctoring or doctoring as good business: Reflections on Freidson's view of the medical game. International Journal of Health Services, 1977, 7, 459–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.McKinlay, J.From ‘promising report’ to ‘standard procedure’: Seven stages in the career of medical innovation. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1981, 59, 374–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Norlen, B. J.Swedish randomized trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting. Canadian Journal of Oncology, 1994, 4(supp. 1), 38–40.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Payer, L.Medicine & culture: Varieties of treatment in the United States, England, West Germany and France. New York: henry Holt & Co. 1988.Google Scholar
19.Schroder, F. H.The European screening study for prostate cancer. Canadian Journal of Oncology, 1994, 4(suppl. 1), 102–05.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Tesh, S.Hidden arguments: Political ideology and disease preventioN, New Brunswic, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
21. The prostate: an owner's manual. Washington Post, 05 23, 1995, special issue.Google Scholar
22.Wasson, J. Prostate cancer: Facts and fears. In Proceedings from National Men's Health Conference, Melbourne. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1996, 49–53.Google Scholar
23.Wasson, J. H., Cushman, C. C., Bruskewitz, R. C., et al. A structured literature review of treatment for localised prostate cancer. Archives of Family Medicine, 1993, 2, 487–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Weiss, R., & Thier, S.HIV testing is the answer: What's the question. New England Journal of Medicine. 1988, 319, 1010–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Whitmore, W. F. Jr.Overview: Historical and contemporary. National Cancer Institute Monographs, 1988, 7, 7–11.Google Scholar
26.Willis, E.Illness and social relations. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1994.Google Scholar
27.Willis, E., & Daly, J. The social relations of medical technologies: The case of sleep disorder centres. In Waddell, C. & Petersen, A. (eds.), Just health. Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone, 1993.Google Scholar
28.Wilson, J. M. G., & Jungner, G.Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: WHO (Public Health paper), 1968.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Wilt, T. J., & Brawer, M. K.The prostate intervention versus observation trial: A randomised control trial comparing radical prostatectomy versus expectant management for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. Cancer, 1995, 75, 1963–68.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar