Abstract
The NHS, the well known welfare state programme in the UK, suffered from two major scandals between the late 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s. They provoked arguments concerning “professionalism” and unprecedented reforms on the priority of NHS, the management of the General Medical Council, and the procedures of accountability. These reforms were a part of modernisation, which the Labor party calle “clinical governance.” The GMC, a solid, self-regulated professional regulatory body, was forced to come under it.
This article aims to trace the process of arguments and obtain the implications of the relationships of professionals. It also argues that the discourse of modernisation transformed both the structure and agents of regulations for professionals. On the grounds that GMC is one of the ideal types of professionals, we could learn many things from this case.
