English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In his medical diary the physician Johann Christoph Götz from Nuremberg recorded his visits as well as his consiliary correspondence. The case of Count Ernst of Metternich who dwelled in Ratisbon and suffered from a bladder stone is particularly well documented. Thus, the source which is focusing the doctor permits to take a look at a section of the medical market managed by the patient around 1720.  Besides the  Medicus ordinarius  Metternich’s specific network, the patient’s network, comprised quite a number of local or transmigratory doctors, surgeons or lay healers as well as (former) invalids, whom he consulted in direct interviews or – in the case of Götz – by letter. The example reveals in which way the medical market was determined by the ego-network.  Analyzing this section of the market, which becomes visible through the interaction between Metternich and Götz, one can profit from Pierre Bourdieu’s conception of different forms of capital. Financial capital, the exchange of goods or services against money, seems of minor importance. In lieu thereof, different cohesions become obvious, in which social, cultural and symbolical capital could become decisive for the doctor’s as well as for the patient’s actions and assertive for the market.

Ernst von Metternich (1656–1727). Ein patientenzentrierter Einblick in den medizinischen Markt um 1720