IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v131y2015icp207-214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drugs, cancer and end-of-life care: A case study of pharmaceuticalization?

Author

Listed:
  • Davis, Courtney

Abstract

There is evidence from some countries of a trend towards increasingly aggressive pharmacological treatment of patients with advanced, incurable cancer. To what extent should this be understood as a progressive development in which technological innovations address previously unmet needs, or is a significant amount of this expansion explained by futile or even harmful treatment? In this article it is argued that while some of this growth may be consistent with a progressive account of medicines consumption, part of the expansion is constituted by the inappropriate and overly aggressive use of drugs. Such use is often explained in terms of individual patient consumerism and/or factors to do with physician behaviour. Whilst acknowledging the role of physicians and patients' expectations, this paper, drawing on empirical research conducted in the US, the EU and the UK, examines the extent to which upstream factors shape expectations and drive pharmaceuticalisation, and explores the value of this concept as an analytical tool.

Suggested Citation

  • Davis, Courtney, 2015. "Drugs, cancer and end-of-life care: A case study of pharmaceuticalization?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 207-214.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:131:y:2015:i:c:p:207-214
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614007965
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gabe, Jonathan & Chamberlain, Kerry & Norris, Pauline & Dew, Kevin & Madden, Helen & Hodgetts, Darrin, 2012. "The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2353-2361.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hauge, Amalie M., 2020. "One last round of chemo? Insights from conversations between oncologists and lung cancer patients about prognosis and treatment decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    2. Gabe, Jonathan & Williams, Simon J. & Coveney, Catherine M., 2017. "Prescription hypnotics in the news: A study of UK audiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 43-52.
    3. Pavolini, Emmanuele & Kuhlmann, Ellen & Agartan, Tuba I. & Burau, Viola & Mannion, Russell & Speed, Ewen, 2018. "Healthcare governance, professions and populism: Is there a relationship? An explorative comparison of five European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(10), pages 1140-1148.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vallée, Manuel, 2019. "The countervailing forces behind France's low Ritalin consumption," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:131:y:2015:i:c:p:207-214. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.