IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v48y1999i3p343-351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The medical profession and alternative medicine in the Netherlands: its history and recent developments

Author

Listed:
  • Schepers, R. M. J.
  • Hermans, H. E. G. M.

Abstract

At the end of 1993, the Dutch parliament passed the Individual Health Care Professions Bill which replaced existing legislation. The new Act brings to an end the monopoly of the Dutch medical profession. The former prohibition on alternative practitioners to practice medicine was abolished. This article addresses the question of whether the Act affects the position of medical dominance in Dutch health care. It will be argued that the new Act preserves the present position of medical dominance to a large extent. Although alternative therapies have gained greater social recognition, there is little indication that the cultural and social authority of medicine is yet being challenged in the Netherlands. However, it could be argued that the Dutch health care system is moving in a more pluralistic direction.

Suggested Citation

  • Schepers, R. M. J. & Hermans, H. E. G. M., 1999. "The medical profession and alternative medicine in the Netherlands: its history and recent developments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 343-351, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:48:y:1999:i:3:p:343-351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(98)00349-9
    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. Wahlberg, Ayo, 2007. "A quackery with a difference--New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2307-2316, December.

    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:48:y:1999:i:3:p:343-351. 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.