I'm not so sure about the stress factor. To me, "both" tends to stress a certain point regardless of whether it's in front or the back. Unfortunately, penguin only gave us a sentence fragment, and I wonder what the difference would be in that particular sentence if "both" were omitted entirely. IOW, what would the sentence express if it were "...to be working for the medical establishment and the government."

You can rest assured that the rest of the sentence doesn't matter. What does, however, matter is that the person in question works both for the medical establishment and the government, so yes, maybe the stress of placing 'both' at the end was intended by the author.

By the way, the book in question is Educated by Tara Westover.

And here's the complete sentence typed out:

Mary taught nursing at the school, which Dad said was just about as brainwashed as a person could get, to be working for the Medical Establishment and the Government both.

I will rest assured then, thank you. But I was merely considering the potential differences between

a) ... to be working for the medical establishment and the government.

b) ... to be working for both the medical establishment and the government.

and

c) ... to be working for the medical establishment and the government both.

Imo, both b) and c) express more or less the same in terms of stressing a point.

If it were to be placed before "for," I'd say that you would need the repeat "for" in the second part of the sentence. (#1)

I often come up with this issue in proofreading, e.g. This applies both to A and B. I then change it to either This applies both to A and to B or This applies to both A and B. As I see it, this is more a matter of logic than of grammar as such.

… to be working for the medical establishment and the government both. (#0)

I’ve never encountered this construction.