IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v22y1986i12p1313-1320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

For better and worse: The technological imperative in health care

Author

Listed:
  • Burger-Lux, M. Janet
  • Heaney, Robert P.

Abstract

Few elements of our lives have changed as profoundly these past 30-40 years as health care. Despite almost miraculous advances and the acquisition of powers previously undreamed-of, there is a sense that all is not right. Paradoxically, dissatisfaction seems to have grown in parallel with the ability to intervene in the course of illness and injury. Many astute observers believe that the problem lies in the smothering dominance of technology, in the fact that technology tends to displace persons as the focus of interest and to create confusion about the purpose and limits of restorative health care. We shall review briefly the terms of the problem as seen by health professionals, social scientists, and ethicists. Out of this analysis we shall suggest the rough outline of an approach to establish some measure of balance in the application of technology to human health problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Burger-Lux, M. Janet & Heaney, Robert P., 1986. "For better and worse: The technological imperative in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 22(12), pages 1313-1320, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:22:y:1986:i:12:p:1313-1320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(86)90094-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Fisher, Jill A. & Monahan, Torin, 2011. "The "biosecuritization" of healthcare delivery: Examples of post-9/11 technological imperatives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 545-552, February.
    2. Hofmann, Bjørn, 2020. "Biases distorting priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 52-60.

    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:22:y:1986:i:12:p:1313-1320. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.