History of Medical Sociology

Definition

Medical sociology is an applied research subfield within the field of sociology that was developed in the 1800s. It uses theories and research to examine the social, cultural, and political factors associated with health, illness, and healthcare and to provide solutions to social problems associated with aspects of health, illness, and healthcare.

1. History of Medical Sociology

1.1. 1880s–1930s

The emergence of medical sociology as a distinct academic discipline was a gradual process shaped by early contributions from physicians and intellectuals alike. John Shaw Billings, organizer of the National Library of Medicine and compiler of the Index Medicus, addressed issues of hygiene and sociology in 1879. However, it was Charles McIntire who first coined the term “medical sociology” in an 1894 medical journal article titled “The Importance of the Study of Medical Sociology,” emphasizing the role of social factors in health [1].

Emile Durkheim’s Suicide (1897) further laid a foundational framework by demonstrating how social structures influence individual health outcomes [2,3]. However, it was not until the mid-20th century—particularly the post-World War II era—that medical sociology gained institutional recognition, catalyzed by increased federal funding and theoretical advancements. A significant milestone in this maturation was Talcott Parsons’ 1950 introduction of the “sick role,” which formalized the interplay between illness, social norms, and role expectations, prompting a wave of scholarly engagement from sociologists [4,5]. These developments collectively shifted the field from its peripheral status to a core area of sociological inquiry.

The first collection of medical sociology essays was written in the early 1900s [6]. Elizabeth Blackwell, who was the first woman to graduate from an American medical school, was the first to publish a collection of essays [6]. James Warbasse followed by writing a collection of medical sociology essays in 1909 [6]. During the 1880s–1930s, the majority of the works produced about medical sociology were written and studied by physicians [6]. One of the most important contributions during the 1880s–1930s was from Lawrence Henderson, who was a physician that taught sociology courses at Harvard in the 1930s [6]. Henderson developed and published the structural functionalist theory in 1935 [6]. Henderson published the work to examine the patient–physician relationship as a social system [6,7]. Henderson also directly influenced Talcott Parsons, who became a leading figure in sociology [6]. Bernhard Stern was the first sociologist to extensively publish extensively on the field of medical sociology. He wrote the history of the role of medicine in society from the late 1920s to the early 1940s [8].

1.2. Post World War II

Medical sociology, as a distinct specialization within sociology, began to gain strength and prominence after World War II [9]. World War II highlighted the impact of social factors on health, leading to greater interest in sociological research related to medicine and healthcare. Studies have shown that wartime experiences such as displacement, hunger, and trauma had long-term effects on physical and mental health outcomes, especially among older adults in Europe [10,11]. This recognition of the social determinants of health contributed to the growth of medical sociology as a field.

Government agencies, particularly the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and private foundations actively supported research and teaching in this area. The NIMH played a pivotal role in funding interdisciplinary studies that examined how social structures, cultural norms, and environmental stressors influence mental health [12]. Journals like the Journal of Health and Social Behavior have emphasized the importance of theoretical frameworks in understanding the interplay between social factors and health outcomes.

1.2.1. The Division in Medical Sociology

In 1957, Robert Straus suggested that medical sociology had become two separate divisions: sociology in medicine and sociology of medicine [13]. The division of sociology in medicine focused on applied research and analysis [13]. It aimed to address medical problems rather than a sociological problems. Sociologist in medicine worked in medical, nursing, public health, or similar professional schools or agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The division of sociology of medicine focused on research and analysis of health from a sociological aspect [13]. Sociologists of medicine worked in academic sociology departments.

The division within the specialty created issues in the United States. Medical sociologists in universities were provided with more opportunities to produce research that would be considered good sociology by sociologists [13]. Sociologists in medical institutions had more opportunities to be involved in medicine and research opportunities that were unavailable outside of the clinical space [13]. During this period, disagreements developed about whose work was more vital to the field. The division was resolved by merging applied and theoretical work in all settings.

1.2.2. Separating Medicine from Medical Sociology

Another concern during the evolution of medical sociology was the potential for the discipline to become reliant on medicine [14]. However, medical sociologists prevented the dependence on the field of medicine by creating separate objectives for course study [14]. Medical sociologists made the field of medicine one of its major subjects of inquiry and added their own subjects, such as social stress, healthy lifestyles, and the social determinants of health [14]. Several influential scholars have highlighted tensions between medicine and medical sociology, advocating for clearer disciplinary boundaries and emphasizing the field’s struggle for independent legitimacy [15]. Horace Freeland Horrobin (1985) famously described medical sociology’s ambiguous status, caught between medicine and sociology, while David Mechanic and Peter Conrad underscored a disciplinary shift toward sociological concerns beyond clinical practice. Elianne Riska (2003) further argued that medical sociology’s diverse cultural development reinforced its separation from both traditional sociology and medicine [15]. Earlier theorists like Gerhardt (1989) and Cockerham (1983) noted the neglect of medicine by foundational sociologists such as Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, which contributed to the discipline’s marginalization [15]. Collectively, these critiques spurred a broader movement toward a sociology of health and illness, expanding focus to include social determinants, patient experiences, and systemic inequities.

1.2.3. Talcott Parsons Era

Talcott Parsons is a well-known sociologist. During the Talcott Parsons era, medical sociology implemented a theoretical direction to a formerly applied field because of the book by Talcott Parsons entitled, The Social System [16]. The book explained complex structural functionalist model of society, primarily outlining the concept of the sick role. His concept of the sick role became the 1st major theory of medical sociology [16]. Due to his work, Parsons brought medical sociology intellectual recognition by associating theoretical concepts with the field. Following Parsons, several other sociologists, such as Robert Merton and Erving Goffman, followed by developing more theories to strengthen the legitimacy of medical sociology.

1.3. The Post Parsons Era

Medical sociology has undergone a significant transformation since its early focus on functionalism and the “sick role” introduced by Parsons. The field has expanded to incorporate a wider array of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies, enabling a more nuanced exploration of the intricate connections between social structures, health, and healthcare systems [17]. Important contributions to this evolution include Merton and his colleagues’ extension of functionalist analysis to medical student socialization (1957), notably highlighted by Renee Fox’s work on managing uncertainty in training [18]. A few years later, Becker and his associates introduced a symbolic interactionist perspective in Boys in White (1961), a seminal study on medical school socialization [19]. This study, lauded for both its theoretical insights and pioneering methodological approach, particularly its use of participant observation, significantly influenced subsequent research. The rigorous application of participant observation laid the groundwork for Glaser and Strauss’s groundbreaking research on death and dying, further expanding theoretical and methodological innovations within the field. These foundational works exemplify the shift in medical sociology towards a more diverse and critical understanding of health and illness within a social context [20,21].

1.3.1. Medical Sociology Associations

The 1960s marked a pivotal period for medical sociology, experiencing a surge in publications driven by the debate between established structural functionalism and the emerging symbolic interactionism. The institutionalization of the field mirrored this growth. The American Sociological Association (ASA) formed its Medical Sociology Section in 1959, which rapidly became one of the largest and most dynamic within the ASA. American involvement also proved instrumental in the 1967 establishment of Research Committee 15 (Health Sociology) within the International Sociological [9]. Simultaneously, in Great Britain, the British Sociological Association (BSA) founded its Medical Sociology Group in 1964. This group ascended to become the BSA’s largest specialty group, organizing its own annual conferences. The launch of the Social Science and Medicine journal in 1967 further underscored the field’s global reach, becoming a leading publication for medical sociologists everywhere [22].

1.3.2. Medical Sociology Literature

In 1958, the first medical sociology textbook was published by Norman Hawkins, entitled Medical Sociology-Theory, Scope & Methods [22]. Other editions of the book were published by David Mechanic in 1968 and by Rodney Coe in 1970 [22]. Howard Freeman authored the first edition of the Handbook of Medical Sociology, published in 1963. The textbook was edited by Howard E. Freeman, Sol Levine, and Leo G. Reeder. They also edited the second edition in 1972. The textbook served as a collection of essays on major topics within the field of medical sociology. The fifth edition of the book was published in 2000 and was edited by Chloe Bird, Peter Conrad, and Allen Fremont [22].

Several major books and readers from this era have been edited and published, including the leading reader edited by Peter Conrad and Rochelle Kern in 1981 and the seventh edition in 2005, which was edited by Conrad only [6]. A major textbook was William Cockerham’s Medical Sociology, initially published in 1978 and attaining its eleventh edition by 2007, which is a seminal academic textbook that methodically examines the social aspects of health, sickness, and healthcare. It analyzes both traditional and modern studies in medical sociology, providing an extensive review of subjects like the social demography of health, disease behavior, doctor–patient relations, and the structuring of healthcare systems. The book synthesizes theoretical frameworks with empirical research, rendering it an essential resource for comprehending the impact of social issues on medical practice and health outcomes [6]. Between the 1970s and 1990s, there were also two new journals created: “The Sociology of Health and Illness” in 1978 in Great Britian and “Health” in 1999 [6].

1.4. Period of Maturity (1970–2000)

Between 1970 and 2000, medical sociology developed into a mature sociological subfield [23]. During this period, there were two major publications: Eliot Freidson’s work, entitled Professional Dominance, in 1970, and Paul Starr’s work, entitled The Social Transformation of American Medicine, in 1982. Freidson focused on his professional dominance theory to outline the level of professional control by physicians over the healthcare delivery system [23]. Starr focused on the reduction in status and power of the medical profession as a large corporate healthcare delivery system directed towards profit [23]. Another major work was Bryan Turner’s Body and Society in 1984, which expanded the discourse on the topic.

During the 1970s–1990s, medical sociology flourished and attracted numerous practitioners in all settings and resulted in numerous publications [23]. Major areas of study included the medicalization of deviance, stress, mental health, inequality and class differences in health, managed care and other organizational changes, healthcare utilization, AIDS, and women’s health and gender [23]. Despite the success of medical sociology, the accomplishments of medical sociology caused the discipline a major problem in the 1980. Because of the success and notoriety of the discipline’s methods, other fields, such as health services research, health economics, health psychology, medical anthropology, and public health, adopted the methods, began to compete for funding with medical sociology, and challenged the distinctiveness of medical sociology [23]. However, the field still maintained a good job market and graduate programs continued to thrive.

1.4.1. Global Expansion of Medical Sociology

Medical sociology also became a major specialty within the field of sociology in Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, and Israel, and began emerging in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 1990s [24]. In 1974, the Japanese Society for Medical Sociology was formed, and medical sociology was becoming popular in Singapore, Thailand, India, and China [24]. Medical sociology also spread to Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile (Cockerham, 2011). In 1983, the European Society for Health and Medical Sociology was created [24].

Medical sociology in Finland has evolved through a complex interplay of academic inquiry, public health reform, and institutional challenges. Its roots trace back to 19th-century social medicine, but a more defined interest emerged in the 1950s, initially focusing on the roles and behaviors of health professionals. By the 1960s, government-sponsored research began addressing regional disparities in morbidity and healthcare access. The 1970s marked a turning point with the establishment of a nationwide network of public health centers under the Primary Health Care Act of 1972, which spurred sociological research into health inequalities and system accessibility [25].

Despite this growth, the field has faced institutional resistance, most notably in 1987, when the University of Helsinki’s Medical Faculty attempted to eliminate its only permanent sociological lectureship in favor of a clinical position [26]. Nevertheless, Finnish scholars have continued to emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration and the sociopolitical dimensions of health, contributing significantly to the Nordic model of welfare-based healthcare [25]. The field remains vibrant, though its institutional footing is comparatively fragile [26].

In the Netherlands, the field gained traction through strong ties between sociology and public health, with early research focusing on health inequalities and the organization of care [27]. A leading figure in Germany who significantly shaped medical sociology through a theoretical lens, particularly influenced by critical theory and the sociology of professions, is Jürgen Habermas. As a second-generation member of the Frankfurt School, Habermas extended critical theory into domains such as communicative action, institutional trust, and the public sphere, all of which have profound implications for understanding the medical profession and healthcare systems [27,28]. His work emphasized how power, legitimacy, and communication shape professional authority and patient relationships, offering a framework that deeply influenced German medical sociology and beyond [28].

Italy emphasized empirical studies on the doctor–patient relationship and regional disparities in healthcare, often shaped by the country’s decentralized health system [27]. Spain saw medical sociology emerge later, largely driven by public health reforms and a growing interest in social determinants of health [27]. Israel developed a robust tradition of medical sociology through interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly in areas like immigrant health, military medicine, and the integration of diverse cultural perspectives into healthcare delivery [27]. Collectively, these countries enriched the field by blending empirical research, policy engagement, and theoretical innovation [27].

Antonina Ostrowska’s 1996 article, “The Development of Medical Sociology in Eastern Europe, 1965–1990”, explores how medical sociology evolved under the influence of political ideology, institutional structures, and local sociological traditions across the Eastern Bloc. Her work highlights that while the field developed unevenly, Poland stood out for its relatively advanced contributions, driven by strong academic interest and integration with public health concerns [29]. Ostrowska emphasizes how Marxist–Leninist ideology both constrained and shaped research agendas, often limiting theoretical innovation but encouraging studies aligned with state health priorities. Despite these constraints, medical sociology in the region addressed critical issues such as healthcare access, professional roles, and patient experiences [29]. Ostrowska also notes the importance of international collaboration and the gradual shift toward more autonomous and interdisciplinary approaches as political conditions began to liberalize in the late 1980s [29].

The Japanese Society of Health and Medical Sociology (JSHMS), established in 1989, has played a pivotal role in institutionalizing and advancing medical sociology in Japan. Its origins trace back to the 1974 Society for the Study of Health and Medical Sociology, and even earlier to the 1950s, when Japanese scholars began engaging with American medical sociology through study circles and joint community surveys [30]. JSHMS has fostered interdisciplinary collaboration among sociologists, medical professionals, and public health researchers, emphasizing that health and medicine are not solely biological phenomena but are deeply embedded in social structures [30]. The society has addressed a wide range of issues, including health inequalities, ethical dilemmas in advanced medical technologies, chronic illness, and the sociocultural dimensions of healthcare [30].

1.4.2. Applied vs. Theoretical Medical Sociology

Sociologists began to compare applied and theoretical medical sociology in the mid-20th century, particularly as the subject grew in the 1950s and thereafter [31,32]. At this pivotal moment, medical sociology gained acknowledgment as a legitimate field of inquiry. The growth was facilitated by post-World War II funding for interdisciplinary research, including sociology and medicine. The discipline evolved through two distinct approaches: “Sociology in Medicine,” which focused on practical applications within the medical field, and “Sociology of Medicine,” which analyzed medicine as a social institution from a theoretical perspective [23,33,34]. Talcott Parsons’ 1951 examination of the “sick role” provided a vital theoretical framework, illuminating the subject and paving the way for subsequent research and analysis. Medical sociology encompasses both theoretical inquiry and practical implementation, with each aspect fulfilling unique yet interrelated functions (see

Table 1. Theoretical Medical Sociology vs. Applied Medical Sociology.

Criteria	Theoretical Medical Sociology	Applied Medical Sociology
Focus	Theoretical medical sociology views health and sickness as social constructions shaped by power and social circumstances. It tries to uncover socioeconomic causes of health inequalities and inform health equality policies and treatments.	Applied medical sociology aims to apply sociological concepts and approaches to address real-world health issues. It links university research to legislators, healthcare personnel, and communities. To understand and improve health outcomes, applied medical sociologists investigate how society affects health, how easy medical treatment is, and the greater social context of sickness and health.
Approach	Primarily research-oriented, focusing on gaining knowledge for its own sake.	Action-oriented, utilizing research to inform practical interventions and solutions.
Key aspects	Focus on Social Determinants of Health Theoretical Perspectives ○ Functionalism ○ Conflict Theory ○ Symbolic Interactionism Social Construction of Illness ○ Health Disparities ○ Social Support and Health ○ Medicalization ○ The Sick Role	Focus on Practical applications Interdisciplinary Approach Emphasis on Social Context Goal of Improving Health Diverse Settings
Methodology	Developing and testing sociological theories.	Program evaluation, policy analysis, consulting, direct engagement with groups/communities.
Applications	Enhancing the scholarly discourse in medical sociology.	Public health policy, healthcare organizations, community development, clinical settings.

). Theoretical medical sociology examines the foundational structures of health, illness, and healthcare systems. Cockerham (2017) and Turner (2004) have developed models that focus on the influence of societal structures, cultural norms, and institutional forces on health outcomes. Applied medical sociology utilizes these insights in practical contexts, influencing public health policy, enhancing healthcare delivery, and refining patient–provider interactions [14]. Theoretical research is prevalent in academic settings, whereas applied sociology is implemented in clinical environments, government agencies, and NGOs focused on addressing concrete health challenges.

The regional development of these branches indicates varying sociopolitical priorities. Interdisciplinary funding and academic infrastructure in North America and Western Europe have facilitated the development of strong theoretical models, especially concerning the social determinants of health [35]. Conversely, nations in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia have adopted applied medical sociology, frequently as a reaction to pressing health emergencies like HIV/AIDS, maternal mortality, and environmental health threats [36,37]. Community-oriented initiatives and localized interventions have influenced a unique sociological perspective in these areas, rooted in activism and social justice.

Currently, medical sociology holds significant relevance in the context of increasing global health issues. Theoretical frameworks facilitate the interpretation of phenomena such as vaccine hesitancy and mental health stigma, whereas applied strategies guide culturally responsive care and equitable policy reform [38]. Emerging technologies such as telemedicine and AI diagnostics are becoming integral to mainstream healthcare [39]. Sociology provides a crucial perspective for examining systemic bias and ethical dilemmas, thereby connecting innovation with inclusive, human-centered care.

1.4.3. The Convergence of Medical Sociology and Pragmatisms

Medical sociology and pragmatism share an evolving convergence rooted in their commitment to real-world impact, human experience, and social context. Pragmatism’s focus on action and consequences enriches medical sociology’s analysis of healthcare systems by prioritizing the effects of policies, professional behaviors, and individual decisions on health outcomes [40]. This philosophy encourages problem-solving and adaptability, prompting sociologists to examine how medical actors navigate habitual practices and innovative solutions to complex challenges [41]. Additionally, pragmatism’s pluralistic, context-sensitive lens aligns with medical sociology’s acknowledgment that health and illness are socially constructed, shaped by historical, cultural, and relational factors rather than universal definitions [40,42].

Together, these disciplines foster a deeper, more critical understanding of medicine that moves beyond the boundaries of biological determinism. Pragmatism’s critique of essentialism and emphasis on contingency reinforces medical sociology’s exploration of how societal structures and power relations influence medical knowledge [40]. Their shared commitment to social justice amplifies efforts to address health inequities and democratize healthcare decision-making [41]. This convergence encourages interdisciplinary inquiry and policy development that centers equity, inclusivity, and the lived realities of patients and providers—paving the way for more responsive and humane healthcare systems [42,43].

2. Key Medical Sociologist Theories

2.1. Structural Functionalist Theory

Emile Durkheim is widely considered the founding father of functionalist theory in sociology. While other theorists like Talcott Parsons further developed and popularized the approach, Durkheim’s work laid the foundational groundwork for functionalism [44]. According to the theory, health is a vital aspect of society. Due to vitality of health and wellness, sickness is labeled as a form of deviance [44]. Parsons believed that the sick person had a specific role and was entitled to certain rights and responsibilities [44]. These rights and responsibilities included not being treated as responsible for their condition, having the right to be excluded from normal social roles, and not being required to fulfill the same obligations as a healthy person [44]. However, these exemptions are limited based on the severity of the patient’s condition and must be legitimized by a physician [44].

2.2. Conflict Theory

While Karl Marx is widely recognized as the founder of conflict theory, its application in medical sociology is more nuanced. In medical sociology, conflict theory examines how power dynamics and social inequalities, particularly those related to class, race, and gender, influence health and healthcare. C. Wright Mills is also considered a key figure in modern conflict theory, applying it to the study of power structures within organizations like government, military, and corporations. According to the theory, the problems that exist within the healthcare system are associated with capitalism [44]. Due to capitalistic values of profit, it resulted in healthcare becoming a commodity rather than a right [44]. In this perspective, people with power and money are the dominant group and make all the decisions within the healthcare system [44]. The control of the dominant group prevents access to care for the subordinates and causes health disparities [44].

2.3. Symbolic Interactionist Theory

George Herbert Mead is widely recognized as the founding father of symbolic interactionism, though he did not publish his work on the subject. Herbert Blumer, a student of Mead, is credited with formalizing the theory and coining the term “symbolic interactionism” [30,45]. In Role-Playing vs. Role-Taking: An Appeal for Clarification, Walter Coutu distinguishes two often-confused concepts in social psychology. Role-playing refers to the observable performance of socially expected behaviors tied to a specific status, such as a teacher instructing or a parent nurturing [45]. In contrast, role-taking is a cognitive and empathic process rooted in George Herbert Mead’s work, where an individual mentally adopts another’s perspective to understand their attitudes, values, or experiences. Coutu warns that conflating these terms undermines analytical clarity and calls for a more precise use of language to preserve the theoretical integrity of both concepts [45].

Symbolic interactionism and social constructionism are closely related sociological theories, but they differ in scale and emphasis. Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on how individuals create and interpret meaning through everyday interactions. It emphasizes the use of symbols like language, gestures, and shared norms in shaping how people understand themselves and others [46]. Originating from the work of George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, it is particularly concerned with how identity, roles, and social reality are negotiated in face-to-face encounters [46].

Social constructionism, on the other hand, operates at a macro-level and examines how entire societies collectively create and institutionalize concepts, norms, and knowledge [46]. Influenced by thinkers like Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, it argues that what we take as “reality” such as gender roles, race, or even illness, is not inherent but is constructed through historical and cultural processes [46]. Simply stated, symbolic interactionism zooms in on the individual’s role in constructing meaning, while social constructionism zooms out to show how societies build shared understandings over time.

2.4. Social Constructionist Theory

The theory of social constructionism, which posits that social and cultural factors shape knowledge and understanding, was largely developed by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. Their groundbreaking work, The Social Construction of Reality, published in 1966, laid the foundation for this perspective [47]. A landmark work in sociology, this text by Berger and Luckmann marked a pivotal shift in the sociology of knowledge. Rather than concentrating on abstract intellectual traditions, the authors explored how everyday knowledge, such as shared beliefs, values, and norms, emerges and evolves within social contexts [47]. These authors introduced the concept of social construction, offering a foundational framework that reshaped sociological theory and had a lasting impact on Western thought.

2.5. Feminist Theory

Feminist theory in medical sociology has evolved through contributions from various scholars, with no single individual credited as its sole developer. Key figures include Simone de Beauvoir, whose work on gender construction influenced the field, and Dorothy Roberts, who brought a political dimension to feminist bioethics [48]. Sexism in healthcare is well-documented, with research showing that women’s symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, are often taken less seriously than men’s. Studies reveal that women not only suffer chronic pain more frequently but also receive different and sometimes less appropriate treatment, including sedatives or invasive interventions, while men are more commonly given painkillers [49]. Physicians have been shown to interpret men’s pain as legitimate and women’s as psychosomatic [49]. Importantly, this bias is not limited to male doctors—female physicians may also exhibit sexist treatment patterns [49].

2.6. Medicalization Concept

The concept of medicalization—the expansion of medical authority to identify, define, and treat human conditions—is primarily associated with the work of Irving Zola and Peter Conrad. Zola’s 1972 paper, “Medicine as an Institution of Social Control,” is considered a foundational text in exploring the expansion of medical authority and its role in society. Zola posited that medicine was beginning to replace religion and law as a major institution that regulates individual and group behavior: “It is becoming the new repository of truth, the place where absolute and often final judgements are made by supposedly morally neutral and objective experts” [50]. This concept was later adopted by Peter Conrad [51]. Conrad described medicalization as the process of “defining behavior as a medical problem or illness and mandating or licensing the medical profession to provide some type of treatment for it” [52], later arguing that defining behavior, not medical jurisdiction, but in medical terms, is the key aspect of medicalization—a definition reflecting his social constructionist orientation [53].

3. New Paradigms in Medical Sociology: The Implications of AI

3.1. Ethical Concerns

Bias in medical AI can emerge at almost every stage, from how data is collected and labeled to how the algorithms are built, tested, and used in real-world settings [54]. If these biases are not addressed, they can lead to poor medical decisions and worsen existing health inequalities [54]. For all of its benefits, the broad integration of AI into medicine also poses significant risks. Clinical datasets should include diverse populations, such as different ethnic groups, genders, and races. The exclusion of diversity in datasets can lead to poor or unfair outcomes for patients from underrepresented groups. Additionally, the poisoning of medical data could be made for obvious insurance-claiming reasons, or for affecting the results of clinical trials [55]. For example, if certain patient groups are not well-represented in the data, the AI might not work as well for them. Sometimes, important information, like social conditions or certain symptoms, is missing or misunderstood by the model. Even the way healthcare providers use these tools can introduce bias.

Possible errors of AI in medicine have extremely complicated legal consequences concerning responsibility. Due to the lack of transparency in the development of medical algorithms and the difficulties in the implementation by healthcare professionals, it would be very difficult to verify accountability and apply for claims or penalties [55]. Governments and international organizations are working to create new laws that create guardrails for AI in medical spaces. The European Union recently released the most comprehensive document outlining rules for AI, known as the EU AI Act [56]. Concerns about data privacy and algorithmic bias further complicate matters [57].

3.2. Social Construction of Healthcare

AI, like any technological advancement, significantly impacts the social construction of healthcare. AI has affected how society understands, experiences, and interacts with health, illness, and medical knowledge [58]. AI-powered tools can assist with documentation, potentially allowing doctors more time for patient interaction [58]. However, over-reliance on AI could depersonalize healthcare and erode trust. AI’s reliance on data and algorithms could lead patients to feel reduced to data points, potentially impacting their subjective experience of illness [58].

While concerns regarding AI in medical sociology are valid and important, several potential benefits and positive applications offer a stark contrast to these “ills.” AI can enhance patient care by assisting with disease diagnosis, personalizing treatment plans, and aiding clinicians in decision-making [59]. Involving diverse patient populations in the AI development lifecycle ensures an equitable and ethical application in public health and medicine. This inclusive approach develops AI systems with a comprehensive understanding of the unique needs and challenges faced by various populations [60]. Benefits of community engagement include enhanced relevance of the AI system to effectively address the specific needs and preferences of the target population. This engagement fosters improved outcomes and increases both public trust and acceptance, which are crucial for the successful implementation of AI systems in medical spaces [61].

3.3. Sociological Perspectives

While the public currently tends to trust human medical professionals more than AI, they also express hope for AI’s potential to improve healthcare in the future [62]. The public perceives AI to be more convenient, objective, efficient, and inexpensive [62]. Recent development in this domain demands critical examination of the implications arising from the integration of AI into social environments. Specifically, if AI assumes social roles, enacts social practices, and forms social relations, this prompts crucial questions regarding how such systems will permeate and reshape social institutions, ultimately redefining the fabric of social life [63]. Another approach takes the actor–network theory approach, which focuses on how humans and machines should be analyzed with comparable consideration, acknowledging their interwoven roles in shaping social phenomena [63]. It argues that AI systems can be like social participants, forming connections and influencing how we view the world [63].

3.4. Future Directions

There is growing momentum to formally establish the sociology of artificial intelligence as a distinct subfield within sociology, highlighting the crucial role sociological perspectives play in understanding the design, implementation, and societal impact of AI technologies [64]. As healthcare evolves, AI is poised to reshape how medical professionals deliver care and operate within clinical and organizational settings. Rather than replacing providers, AI is expected to complement their expertise—offering tools that expand their reach, streamline workflows, and enable care for patients who might otherwise remain untreated. A sociological lens, with its emphasis on power relations, institutional dynamics, and social inequality, is essential for guiding the responsible development and deployment of AI across medical contexts [63,64,65,66].

The increasing integration of AI into medicine is transforming medical sociology—a discipline dedicated to examining the social dimensions of health, illness, and healthcare systems. As AI automates diagnostic and procedural tasks, professional roles and skill expectations are shifting, with implications for clinical decision-making and the patient-provider relationship. While AI offers unprecedented opportunities to reach underserved populations, its reliance on vast datasets also raises serious concerns: algorithmic bias, exacerbated health disparities, and digital exclusion. Ethical issues surrounding privacy, accountability, and autonomy are intensifying. In response, medical sociology plays a vital role—not only by investigating these social consequences, but also by promoting equity, guiding ethical practices, and ensuring that the technological future of healthcare remains inclusive, reflective, and human-centered.