Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:21:10.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Professional Association and the Legal Regulation of Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Ronald L. Akers
Ronald L. Akers*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The political ideologies, identifications, affiliations, participation, contribution to campaign funds, government employment, seeking and holding office, and other aspects of the political behavior of incumbents of various occupations, professions and strata have been investigated. There are also some discussions of the political power of professions, almost exclusively concerned with the legal and medical groups. But the study of professional associations as political pressure groups and their impact on the formulation and administration of the law has been relatively neglected. Professions are prominent among the many pressure groups actively pressing claims upon and through government, attempting to have a part in shaping any public policy that affects their interest. There is ample suggestion in the literature that major portions of their efforts are directed toward the state licensure and practice laws.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , May 1968 , pp. 463 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 by the Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

Author's Note: This paper is based on research that was part of a larger study of the political power of professions while the author was on National Science Foundation Fellowship tenure. See R. Akers, Professional Organization, Political Power, and Occupational Laws, 1966 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kentucky).

References

1. O. Glantz, Political Identifications of Occupational Strata, in Man, Work, and Society 419-31 (S. Nosow & W. Form eds. 1962) ; J. Hardman, The Power Motivation of the American Labor Movement, id. at 431-36; S. Lipset & M. Schwartz, The Politics of Professionals, in Professionalization 299-310 (H. Vollmer & D. Mills eds. 1966); H. Hall, Scientists and Politicians, id. at 310-21; B. Barber, Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions, 92 Daedalus 669-88 (1962) ; W. Glaser, Doctors and Politics, 66 Am. J. Soc. 230-45 (1960); R. Lewis, New Power at the Polls: The Doctors, in Politics in the United States 180-85 (H. Turner ed. 1955); see also the selective bibliographies on ideologies, politics, and occupations in Nosow and Form, supra at 587-88.

2. Nearly every listing, inventory, classification, or comprehensive discussion of pressure groups in American society includes the “big three” of business, labor and agriculture, occupational groups with special emphasis on professions, and usually some mention of a miscellaneous assortment of veteran, women, reform, motoring, civil rights, religious and other groups. H. Zeigler calls the big three plus the professional groups, the “big four” in Interest Groups in American Society 93-232 (1964); V. Key, Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups 54-65, 92ff. (1958); D. Truman, The Governmental Process 68-108 (1962) ; R. Williams, American Society: A Sociological Interpretation 272-75 (1963).

3. A. Carr-Saunders & P. Wilson, The Emergence of Professions in Nosow and Form, supra note 1, at 205; B. Barber, supra note 1, at 683-84; W. Goode, Community Within a Community: The Professions, 22 Am. Soc. Rev. 195 (1957) ; Goode, Encroachment, Charlatanism, and the Emerging Professions: Psychology, Sociology, and Medicine, 25 Am. Soc. Rev. 905 (1960) ; H. Wilensky, The Professionalization of Everyone, 70 Am. J. Soc. 145-46 (1964) ; Wilensky, The Dynamics of Professionalism: The Case of Hospital Administration, 7 Hosp. Adm. 17 (1962) ; Truman, supra note 2, at 93-96; Key, supra note 2, at 118, 135-37; H. Gasnell & M. Schmitt, Professional Associations, 179 Annals 25-33 (1935) ; B. Zeller, Pressure Politics in New York 158-86 (1937); D. McKean, Pressures on the Legislature of New Jersey 72 (1938).

4. The interview schedule was constructed on the basis of an exhaustive content analysis of the relevant practice acts. Informants were questioned regarding desirable provisions in the law, the part played by the association in influencing its passage, and the nature of opposition met.

5. Included in this material were journals, books, pamphlets, booklets, committee reports, minutes of meetings, private correspondence, personal papers, unpublished manuscripts, bulletins and communiques, copies of court decisions, copies of laws from other states, and drafts, suggestions, proposals, and bills considered before introduction to the legislature.

6. G. Sonnedecker, Kremer's and Urdang's History of Pharmacy 180 (1963).

7. M. Cox, Optometry, The Profession 35 (1957); E. Arrington, History of Optometry 21-22 (1929).

8. Eds. of the Yale L.J., The American Medical Association: Power, Purpose, and Politics in Organized Medicine, in Vollmer & Mills, supra note 1, at 321.

9. R. Sprau & E. Gennett, History of Kentucky Dentistry 7, 97-106 (1960).

10. S. Spector & W. Frederick, Occupational Licensing Legislation in the States 18-21 (1952); C. Stetler & A. Moritz, Doctor, Patient and the Law 13 (1962); Sonnedecker, supra note 6, at 179; Remington's Practice of Pharmacy 14 (E. Martin, et al. ed. 1961); Arrincton, supra note 7, at 197.

11. For instance, the AMA and the ADA give regular reports through their respective journals on federal legislation of interest to the medical and dental professions; see 190 J.A.M.A. 313 & 347 (1964) ; 69 J.A.D.A. 58-87 (1964).

12. R. McClucgage, A History of the American Dental Association 368-69 (1959); American Dental Association, The American Dental Association: Its Structure and Function 22-23 (1957) ; 69 J.A.D.A. 607-12 (1964) ; 67 J.A.D.A. 884-92 (1963) ; 58 J.A.D.A. 27 (1959) ; 35 J.A.O.A. 1045 (1964) ; Martin, et al., supra note 10, at 1698-1703; 4 Ja. PhA. Ns. 202 (1964); D. Anderson, The Present Day Doctor of Chiropractic 9 (1956) ; Stetler & Moritz, supra note 10, at 16; O. Garceau, The Political Life of the American Medical Association 165 (1961); J. Burrow, AMA: Voice of American Medicine 54-66 (1963).

13. J. Dodson, How to Pass a Bill in Frankfort, 27 Ky. Phar. 10-12, 24-27 (1964).

14. Report of the American Association of Dental Examiners Committee on Legislation 4 (1962).

15. American Medical Association, Opinions and Reports of the Judicial Council § 3, 11-12 (1964).

16. T. McClusky, Your Health and Chiropractic 147-64 (1957).

17. KPhA News, Feb. 15, 1962 and Feb. 23, 1962.

18. McClusky, supra note 16, at 157; Anderson, supra note 12, at 9.

19. American Medical Association, supra note 15, at 13-14.

20. Arrington, supra note 7, at ii-iv, 19-22.

21. E. Hughes, Men and Their Work 77-78 (1958) ; Hughes, The Study of Occupations, in Sociology Today 447 (R. Merton, et al. ed. 1959).

22. Key, supra note 2, at 36; W. Boyer, Bureaucracy on Trial 24-26 (1964); Wilensky (1964), supra note 3, at 145-46.

23. Zeigler, supra note 2, at 277-99.

24. J. Hall, Theft Law and Society (1952) ; W. Chambliss, A Sociological Analysis of the Law of Vagrancy, 12 Social Problems 67-77 (1964) ; H. Becker, Outsiders 135-46 (1963) ; A. Lindesmith, Federal Law and Drug Addiction, 7 Social Problems 48-59 (1959) ; D. Dykstra, The History of a Legislative Power Struggle, Wis. L. Rev. 402-29 (Spring 1966).

25. A. Rose, Some Suggestions for Research in the Sociology of Law, Social Problems 281 (1962) ; C. Auerbach, Legal Tasks for the Sociologist, 1 L. & Soc. Rev. 98-99 (1966).

26. Truman, supra note 2, at 13; M. Irish & J. Prothro, The Politics of American Democracy 336 (1959).