A Synthesis Of Learning Across Topics

In his article “Whose Body Is It, Anyway?”—appearing in the New Yorker in October 1994—Dr. Atul Gawande highlights the complexities of the doctor-patient relationship vis-à-vis patient autonomy and decision-making. Dr. Gawande explains that a respect for patient autonomy (i.e., allowing patients to choose between courses of treatment, therefore directly influencing their health outcome) is the “new normal” for medical practitioners. However, Gawande also contends that there are times when patients are better served by a voluntary relinquishment of that autonomy.

In the sociology of medicine Parson (1951) regarded medicine as functional in social terms. By tackling the person’s problems in medical terms the tendency towards deviance that was represented by ill health could be safely directed, until they could return to their normal self. (Lawrence 1994: p 64-65: BMJ 2004: Parson cited in Gabe, Bury & Elston 2006, p 127).

“The only appropriate and realistic model of the Dr.‐patient relationship is paternalism. Doctors are the medical experts; most patients have little, if any, reliable medical knowledge; implicit trust in one’s physician is essential to the healing process; and doctors have the responsibility for our health and therefore have the duty to make all the important medical decisions.” Critically assess that claim.

A patient is a human being. Illness disturbs biological, social, psychological elements that make the patient human. It is not enough to centre and diagnoses and decisions on scientific data and empirical fact; medicine is about much more. The focus of this paper is to make the argument that the practice of medicine is a discipline that requires human empathy as well as scientific data and empirical fact to establish diagnoses with emphasis on five components of the physician-patient relationship: patient’s experience of illness, physician-patient communication, and proficiency of end of life care, medical ethics and spiritual growth. This position will be supported through the film “Wit (Nichols & Brokaw, 2002)” through the character Vivian Bearing 's revelation that illustrates a patient’s struggle with death and in the process exposes the distinction between medicine and science.

The video presented the ethics and boundaries and factors that affect those boundaries such as addiction, abuse, absent role models, and patients assuming the professional shares the same feelings as he or she does. Then the video discusses issues the doctor may incur such as “special treatment” of patients, time management, poor awareness of feelings, and the response to the patient.

Confidentiality is one of the main duties of health care providers. They are required to keep a patient’s health information private unless patient consent to release of the information (De Bord et al, 2013). Dilemmas in patient’s confidentiality may arise when there is disagreement between the principle of confidentiality and other ethical principles such as avoiding harm to the patient or others.

In conclusion, Person introduces two conflicting opinions of the main message, medical ethics. However, there is a bias towards Jenna’s initial view, and the opinions of Lily and Alleys. Overall, the author uses this book as a way of showing us the ever-more relevant debate of medical ethics, but wants us to make our own decision of what view to

The social interaction is an integral part of everyday life of each individual, which is learned from the early childhood and is innate in its nature. It includes the social exchange of information, the ability to communicate, decide, and take responsibility for one’s action. The routine work of healthcare professionals includes the information exchange on an everyday basis. The excellent knowledge of primary disciplines necessary for the practice is crucial for the healthcare professional; however, one can encounter the difficulties without the deeper understanding of ethical principles of communication in the healthcare environment. The book “Health Professional and Patient Interaction”” by R. Purtilo, A. Haddad, and R. Doherty introduces the readers with the basic ethical principles and behaviors in the healthcare setting. The key points that the healthcare professional has to practice to achieve success and harmonic professional relationship with the patient are: respect in all circumstances, the ability to listen, the readiness for challenges, and care with empathy to the patient situation beyond any limits.

Within healthcare, practitioners often have to make difficult decisions regarding the care of their patients. This could be to do with giving or withdrawing treatment, or as simple as sharing risk information (Glover, 1997). Ultimately, the practitioner must be able to rationalise any decision they have made (Morrison, 2009). With this in mind, the following assignment will draw upon an ethical dilemma and explore how theoretical perspectives can be utilised within the decision making process. Therefore it will also be pertinent to draw upon the law, and how this influences actions within health care. To facilitate this discussion, I will identify a scenario from practice that

The conceptualisation of medicine as an institution of societal control was first theorised by Parsons (1951), and from this stemmed the notion of the deviant termed illness in which the “sick role” was a legitimised condition. The societal reaction and perspective was deemed a pillar of the emerging social construction of disease and conception of the formalised medical model of disease. Concerns surrounding medicalisation fundamentally stem from the fusion of social and medical concerns wherein the lines between the two are gradually blurred and the the social consequences of the proliferation of disease diagnosis that results from such ambiguities of the social medical model.

Townend argues that “the convergence of moralized discourses around poverty and illness is represented most visibly and powerfully in the issue of obesity “As exemplified by the bold statements she makes, her argument is that obesity affects a nation in a variety of

The doctor-patient relationship always has been and will remain an essential basis of care, in which high quality information is gathered and procedures are made as well as provided. This relationship is a critical foundation to medical ethics that all doctors should attempt to follow and live by. Patients must also have confidence in their physicians to trust the solutions and work around created to counter act certain illnesses and disease. Doctor-patient relationships can directly be observed in both the stories and poems of Dr. William Carlos Williams as well as in the clinical tales of Dr. Oliver Sacks. Both of these doctors have very similar and diverse relationships with multiple patients

Lying in medicine seems to be a requirement for doctors because they think that truthful information can hurt patients (Bok 222). According to doctors, while they are telling the truth, patients may have a heart attack or their psychological mechanism might be alleged. Furthermore, death comes more quickly. However, these are so rare and considering these universal is an overgeneralization. In addition, doctors consider their patient as a child and see them like a blind, suffering and passive toy (M.Smith and M.Weil 22); hence, doctors think that they can make choices for their patients without telling the truth to patients. However, this opinion just shows doctors’ paternalistic view (Bok 227).

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.

The treatment of physical and mental problems has undergone a rapid change in the past few decades. An increasing number of bodily and behavioural symptoms now have a recognised medical diagnosis and corresponding treatment. Sociologists have attributed these changes to the process of medicalization, wherein “non-medical problems come to be defined and treated as if they were medical issues” (McLennan, McManus & Spoonley 2009: 271). Medicalization is an ongoing, gradual process which occurs through the social construction of new diseases by groups such as health professionals (Conrad 2007: 4). It can be argued that medicalization is an active and passive process by which diseases are constructed in an attempt to find treatments for patients; and that diseases can be ‘socially’ constructed as well as ‘corporately’ constructed by companies to create a profitable market of consumers. At the micro level of society, medicalization in the Western world has been influenced by liberal notions of individualization which has extended to some parts of the health sector. At the macro level, medicalization has been buoyed by the process of the professionalization, expansion of state monopoly over the health profession and religious and political social movements. Although some academics argue that the medicalization of society is less significant than the process of “de-medicalization”, there is clear evidence that the process of medicalization is intensifying and outstripping the rate