Hierarchy and Power: Australian Health Care System

This paper explores the intrinsic hierarchy and power in the Australian healthcare system and how it impacts healthcare practitioners. It employs feminism, conflict theory, and functionalism sociological theories and concepts to substantiate arguments.

Running Head: HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 1
Hierarchy and Power: Australian Health Care System
Name
Institution
Date

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 2
Hierarchy and Power: Australian Health Care System
Healthcare systems across the globe are characterized by power and hierarchy intrigues
with various stakeholders holding varying viewpoints on what is supposed to be the most ideal
situation. The same is significantly intrinsic in the current Australian health care system. The
health care system is part and parcel of the societal setup and therefore it greatly subscribes to
the sociological provisions of particular societies. Societies are composed of underlying
hierarchal and power facets that act either in favor of the positive wellbeing of the entire society
or to the detriment of the same. At the healthcare facility level, this situation is extended to
impact the relationship between different healthcare practitioners significantly impacting the
provision of health care services (Cockerham, & Scambler, 2010).
Hierarchical power intrigues in societies emanate from the existence of social inequalities
that affect different individuals and sections of the community to access critical socioeconomic
elements. This by extension impacts the ability of the members of the society to access quality
healthcare services equally. To this end, hierarchical power relations are responsible for
asymmetric associations that advantage some disadvantaging others. This paper will be keen to
bring out how intrinsic hierarchy and power are to the existing Australian healthcare system and
how such a system may influence me as a healthcare practitioner. The paper will employ
feminism, conflict theory, and functionalism sociological theories and concepts to substantiate
arguments.
To help explain how hierarchical power intrigues help shape and impact the society and
healthcare facilities stakeholders, it is important to first define what sociology really is.
According to Wills and Elmer, (2011) sociology can be defined as the study of social life and the
complex relationships stakeholders in its exhibit. Sociology utilizes sociological theories,

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 3
perspectives, and concepts to explain how the society stakeholders shape and impact different
society constructs including hierarchy and power relations (Haralambos, & Holborn, 2008).
Moreover, sociologists are in a position to explain the emergence and existence of social
inequalities responsible for hierarchical power imbalances as well as proposing the most optimal
strategies to curb the disadvantaging aspects of the same. Being part of the society, healthcare
facilities hierarchy and power intrigues can as well be explained through sociological theories
and perspectives (Cockerham, & Scambler, 2010).
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [OECD, 2016]
indicated that the Australian health care system is amongst best healthcare systems worldwide.
Even as such, the Australian healthcare system is extensively hierarchical with power and
dominion coming at play at different levels of the system which by extension ominously impact
healthcare delivery (Nugus, Greenfield, Travaglia, Westbrook, & Braithwaite, 2010). From a
society perspective, like any other society set up, the Australian society is punctuated by wide
socioeconomic inequalities that significantly affect the abilities of different individuals and
sections of the society to access quality healthcare (Reiss, 2013).
One of the most instrumental and influential sociological theories in explaining the
impacts and implications of hierarchy and power both at the healthcare facility level as well as at
the society level is the conflict theory. Phelan, Link, and Tehranifar (2010) points out that
conflict theory is of the view that justice and fairness are very critical in a society in which case
there shouldn’t be any power inequalities baring members of the society from equally accessing
quality and affordable healthcare. Conflict theory pioneer; Karl Marx envisaged for world
societies in which there is fair and equitable access to critical socioeconomic elements.
Moreover, Karl Marx observed that the societies’ hierarchical power intrigues emanating from

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 4
the inequitable access of fundamental socioeconomic elements adversely impact the equitable
access to healthcare (Shaw, 2008). In the healthcare context, these socioeconomic elements are
called social determinants of health (Marmot, Friel, Bell, Houweling, Taylor, 2008) which may
include factors such as employment distribution, gender, wealth distribution, races, tribes, access
to clean water, access to food, housing and neighborhood conditions.
In sociology, sociological discourses are extrapolated through the “structure-agency”
concept. The conflict theory under the “structure-agency” concept is not biased towards structure
or agency in describing the manner in which the inequalities in social determinants of health
impact healthcare delivery. This conflict theory proposition follows the assumption that the
entire social framework; individuals and institutions, work to enhance either the denial of access
to health care services or promote the easy access of the same to different individuals and society
sections. This is made possible through the exploitation of underlying hierarchies and powers in
the society. Indeed, the “structure-agency” concept in extrapolating sociological discourses has
proven instrumental in giving a comprehensive and wholesome picture of the healthcare
hierarchy and power relationships (Short & Mollborn, 2015).
The World Health Organization (WHO) has for a long time been in the forefront to
advocate for the minimization of negative social determinants of health for purposes of
advancing world societies that are healthy since everyone can be able to access healthcare
without being bared by the societies' hierarchical power structures. 2008 WHO report titled
“Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of
health”, envisaged the need for world countries to strive to fuse the inequalities posed by social
determinants of health so that positive health outcomes for all can be realized. To this end, the

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5
Australian healthcare system needs to heed to this call by striving to minimize the same for
purposes of elevating fairness in healthcare access for its diverse society.
Navarro, (2009) assert that the higher likelihood is for people living in poverty in
Australia to undergo detrimental social determinants of health than their much economically
endowed counterparts. As such, the poor are more likely to access poor health services than the
rich (Lee, 2015). Using the example of social class, culture and ethnic background, the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people of other cultures are likely to undergo
discrimination and intimidation in their quest for quality and affordable health services. Conflict
theory views discrimination as a social ill that needs to be eradicated to allow equality in the
access of critical yet fundamental social services such as health care.
In contrasting viewpoint to the conflict theory’s perspective to equitable access of social
determinants of health and how the same contribute to hierarchical power intrigues in the society
the biomedical theory to healthcare sociology is of the perspective that healthcare ought to be
approached from an objective and physical viewpoint. Timmermans and Haas (2008) assert that
the biomedical theory to healthcare sociology draws from the Cartesian philosophy, in which
case there is a detachment of the soul, mind, and spirit from the body. The body is seen as an
object that deserves repair in terms of treatment whenever its dysfunctions. This makes the
biomedical model not to be inclined to either the structural or agency side of the "structure-
agency" sociological discourse.
Feo and Kitson (2016) assert that the biomedical theory simply aims to distance social
aspects from patients’ illness. The biomedical theory has however been instrumental in
contributing significantly to clinical research and patient treatment and management. This
withstanding the theory’s main criticism remains its assumption that the mind and the body can

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 6
be separated and by extension asserting that no social aspects can be incorporated in healthcare
delivery discourse. To this end, the biomedical theory assumes that there are no hierarchical and
power concerns in healthcare.
This notwithstanding, the feminist theory reinforces the tenets of conflict theory from a
gender perspective. The feminist theory is of the opinion that healthcare hierarchical power
intrigues perpetrated by patriarchal and capitalist societies ought to be completely eradicated.
The theory views men and women as equally endowed with the requisite mental and physical
capabilities of being their own thinkers and doers of things. To this end, the feminist theory
partakes and exposes both the both the structural and agency perspectives of sociological
“structure-agency” discourse. Burton (2016) asserts that discrimination against women has
rocked the globe throughout history and has been viewed as their men’s weaker counterparts.
This is the case even at the healthcare practitioner’s level. The society perceives women
as inadequate and incompetent to assume medical courses while at the health facility level, they
are seen as incapable of tackling complicated healthcare concerns and therefore they are pushed
to perform less demanding healthcare activities. Pedwell and Whitehead (2012) have labeled out
discriminatory employment trends, unequal resource distribution, cultural and religious
stipulations, financial capacities, sexual psychological orientations as yardsticks and platform of
grounding power hierarchies meant to humiliate and discriminate women.
A critical implication of hierarchical power inequalities in healthcare facilities is the
commission of medical mistakes and errors. Hierarchical power relations between different
healthcare practitioners hinder the smooth therapeutic and professional interrelationships
between these practitioners such that some practitioners shy away from advancing corrective
advice to more educated or experienced practitioners during patient care. Throughout the

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 7
medical history, power, control, and dominion tussles have rocked the healthcare industry with
particular healthcare practitioners perceiving themselves as the custodians of power and
authority (Fewster-Thuente, & Velsor-Friedrich, 2008).
Gender and professional levels have remained one of the platforms to exert inequitable
hierarchical power relations in the healthcare industry with women being forced to always
contend from the receiving side. Women have for a long time been made to endure exploitative
power hierarchies that are keen to escalate social ills such as bullying, discrimination,
intimidation, and segregation (Liberatore, & Nydick, 2008). By adopting the social determinants
of health perspective, Burton (2015) the feminist theory's aim is to advance a society setup that
enhances the development of women in communities as well as in healthcare settings.
Still, at the healthcare facility level, the Australian healthcare system emphasizes the
importance of involving patients in their own care through patient-centered care approaches.
Patient-centered approaches to healthcare have been proven by empirical research to have
abilities to shun power hierarchies exhibited by earlier traditional provider-patient care
approaches (Jordan, Briggs, Brand, & Osborne, 2008). Pulvirenti, McMillan, and Lawn, (2014)
contend that patient-centered approaches not only break power and authority impacts and
implications at the provider-patient perspective but also power relations governing healthcare
practitioners. The breakage of these power relations between different healthcare stakeholders by
patient-centered approaches acts to enhance the tenets of conflict and the feminist theory when
negative social determinants of health are also shunned through patient involvement in their own
healthcare.
Adding to this healthcare sociological discourse regarding power hierarchies is the
structural functionalism theory devised with tenets that remotely back the social determinants

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 8
viewpoint from the structure side of the structure-agency continuum. The structural
functionalism perspective of healthcare sociology brings together several facets of the social
structure including institutions, and social groups to gain synergy which by extension help to
maintain stability and social order. The theory is largely a macro- analytical viewpoint with little
reference to individual social inequalities as outlined by the conflict theory (Smith, 2010).
Healthy conditions and health care are fundamental to a functioning society (Parsons, 1951).
Parsons (1951) further asserts that unhealthy conditions are responsible for hinder individuals
from doing their duties and responsibilities in the society.
Parsons (1951) viewed that a big number of the people in the society fall ill, the society's
stability and functionality are significantly compromised. As such in support of the conflict
theory and its equality in social determinants of health tenet, this theory perceives the factor
“accessing support networks in access of positive social determinants” as very fundamental
(McMurray & Clendon, 2015). To this end, Parson perceives society hierarchical powers as
instrumental in developing healthy communities. The idea that the structural functionalism
perspective is overly macro-minded reduces its feasibility in solving the society’s healthcare
concerns evoked by society power hierarchies since the theory fails to recognize the fact that the
people’s healthcare concerns emanate from these people’s different backgrounds as well as their
abilities to access the same (McLaughlin, & Dietz, 2008). Parson’ ideology that the relationship
between healthcare providers and patients can only be hierarchical is also criticized in the wake
of more inclusive patient-centered approaches in the Australian healthcare system (Burnham,
2014).
The Australian healthcare system is overly hierarchical and power, control, and authority
will always come at play between the society members, patients, healthcare practitioners, and the

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 9
healthcare system regulators. With the wide differences in the social determinants of health,
these inequalities are bound to continue escalating in the unforeseeable future. The Australian
government is best suited to eliminate all social determinants inequalities as well as shunning all
negative power hierarchies surrounding the Australian healthcare system for purposes of
producing positive patient outcomes.
I am bound to be adversely impacted by the current healthcare system power hierarchies
in Australia as I engage in my day to day healthcare duties. From the conflict theory viewpoint,
and despite Australia’s deep-rooted social determinants’ of health inequalities, I will fashion my
healthcare delivery to reflect what a just and fair society ought to be like by equitably serving my
patients and families irrespective of their backgrounds and socioeconomic status. The biomedical
theory, though biased against the sociological facet of health care, I will utilize the tenets of this
theory to advance holistic evidence-based healthcare. I will also endeavor to be more gender
sensitive as advocated for by the feminist theory in the execution of my healthcare duties.
The structural-functionalist theory impacts in me the ideology that making efforts to
forge functional and stable communities through the provision of holistic healthcare services
means developing coherent societies that are more accommodative and inclusive especially in
accessing positive social determinants of health. To this end, one of my goals will be to strive to
offer quality healthcare services congruent to social goals. Hierarchical power intrigues at the
healthcare facility level and the inefficiencies they cause healthcare delivery enlightens me of the
significance of shunning the same for optimal healthcare outcomes. Kuhlmann and Saks (2008)
assert that effective interpersonal relationship and communication are critical regardless of
healthcare providers’ professionalism, legislation backing, and educational levels.

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 10
In conclusion, hierarchical power intrigues in the Australian healthcare systems ought to
be monitored by regulating authorities to ensure that rather than being a source of adverse
healthcare delivery, they be a source of reinforcement of the same. Even as such, most power
hierarchies are detrimental to healthcare delivery and therefore they must be eliminated or be
orchestrated to advance holistic, quality and affordable healthcare (Liberatore, & Nydick, 2008).
Healthcare sociological theories and perspectives and the sociological discourse; “structure-
agency” are instrumental in expediting the same.

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 11
References
Burton, C. W. (2016). The Health Needs of Young Women: Applying a feminist philosophical
lens to nursing science and practice. ANS. Advances in nursing science, 39(2), 108.
Burton, R. (2015). Beyond inequality: Acknowledging the complexity of social determinants
of health. Social Science & Medicine, 147, 121-125.
Burnham, J. C. (2014). Why sociologists abandoned the sick role concept. History of the Human
Sciences, 27(1), 70-87.
Cockerham, W. C., & Scambler, G. (2010). Medical sociology and sociological theory. The new
Blackwell companion to medical sociology, 3-26.
Feo, R., & Kitson, A. (2016). Promoting patient-centered fundamental care in acute healthcare
systems. International journal of nursing studies, 57, 1-11.
Fewster-Thuente, L., & Velsor-Friedrich, B. (2008). Interdisciplinary collaboration for
healthcare professionals. Nursing administration quarterly, 32(1), 40-48.
Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M. (2008). Sociology: Themes and perspectives. HarperCollins
UK.
Jordan, J. E., Briggs, A. M., Brand, C. A., & Osborne, R. (2008). Enhancing patient engagement
in chronic disease self-management support initiatives in Australia: the need for an
integrated approach. The Medical Journal of Australia, 189(10 Suppl), S9-S13
Kuhlmann, E., & Saks, M. (Eds.). (2008). Rethinking professional governance: International
directions in healthcare. Policy Press.
Lee, M. S. (2015). The principles and values of health promotion: building upon the Ottawa
charter and related WHO documents. Korean Journal of Health Education and
Promotion, 32(4), 1-11.

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 12
Liberatore, M. J., & Nydick, R. L. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health
care decision making: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research,
189(1), 194-207.
McMurray, A., & Clendon, J. (2015). Community Health and Wellness-E-book: Primary Health
Care in Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences
McLaughlin, P., & Dietz, T. (2008). Structure, agency, and environment: Toward an integrated
perspective on vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 99-111.
Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A., Taylor, S., & Commission on Social
Determinants of Health. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through
action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1661-1669.
Navarro, V. (2009). What we mean by social determinants of health. Global Health Promotion,
16(1), 05-16.
Nugus, P., Greenfield, D., Travaglia, J., Westbrook, J., & Braithwaite, J. (2010). How and where
clinicians exercise power: interprofessional relations in health care. Social science &
medicine, 71(5), 898-909.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016). OECD health statistics
Definitions, Sources, and Methods. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/els/health-
systems/Table-of-Content-Metadata-OECD-Health-Statistics-2016.pdf
Pulvirenti, M., McMillan, J., & Lawn, S. (2014). Empowerment, patient-centered care, and self‐
management. Health Expectations, 17(3), 303-310.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York, NY: Free Press.
Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., & Tehranifar, P. (2010). Social conditions as fundamental causes of

HIERARCHY AND POWER: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 13
health inequalities: theory, evidence, and policy implications. Journal of health and
social behavior, 51(1_suppl), S28-S40.
Pedwell, C., & Whitehead, A. (2012). Affecting feminism: Questions of feeling in feminist
theory. Feminist Theory, 13(2), 115-129.
Reiss, F. (2013). Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and
adolescents: a systematic review. Social science & medicine, 90, 24-31.
Short, S. E., & Mollborn, S. (2015). Social determinants and health behaviors: conceptual frames
and empirical advances. Current opinion in psychology, 5, 78-84.
Shaw, D. (2008). Social determinants of health. Clinical Medicine, 8(2), 225-226.
Smith, A. D. (2010). The Concept of Social Change (Routledge Revivals): A Critique of the
Functionalist Theory of Social Change. Routledge.
Timmermans, S., & Haas, S. (2008). Towards a sociology of disease. Sociology of health &
illness, 30(5), 659-676.
World Health Organization (2008). Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the
Gap in a Generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health.
Available from: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/e
Willis, K. F., & Elmer, S. L. (2007). Society, culture and health-an introduction to sociology for
nurses. Oxford University Press.