Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Doctor patient confidentiality law
Reflection on patient confidentiality
Reflection on patient confidentiality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Doctor patient confidentiality law
In the 19th century, the field of sociology developed, thus allowing for many sociologists to challenge the way society works, especially, in the health care system. Deborah Lupton is one of these sociologists that has researched the social and cultural aspects of medicine and the public health. She has published “a series of papers emerging from a study on patients’ and medical practitioners’ views on the medical profession and the coverage of the medical profession in the mass media.” (Lupton, 1997:108) In this article, she delves deeply into medicalization to shed the light on the contributions of a Foucauldian perspective to understand power relations within the medical profession. Lupton agrees with the Foucauldian perspective and argues …show more content…
The doctors are higher up in the hierarchy and have a role in curing the patients of their illness. Since the patient is lower down in the hierarchy, therefore, they should solely accept the treatment that is provided to them in order for them to go back to their normal life. Latour would agree with this theory because he believes that you can’t remove the power from the doctors, such as how you can’t remove society from scientific facts. The medical practitioners have received an education which has provided them with all the scientific facts and medical knowledge. Therefore, it’s their duty to promote health to the patients and inform them of their illness. Furthermore, the patient should just accept the teachings of the doctor since he has more authority. Parsons would also agree because it follows the asymmetrical relationship between the doctors and the patients. Parson’s theory suggests that patients have a choice to accept the fact that they were sick and to seek professional help to get better. However, once they sought out the help they required, the physician then took over all responsibility and power of their illness. This asymmetry allows the doctor to pass along knowledge to the patients and allow them to get healthy and allows the power to be …show more content…
Doctors urge patients to follow the mainstream practices in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle and to avoid disease, illness, pain, and even an early death. This “hidden power” is demonstrated through the consumption of cigarettes. In the 1960s, cigarettes used to be the biggest rage until doctors knew about their deadly side effects. Doctors then informed the general public about the risk of an early death, furthermore resulting in the decline of smokers. Latour would agree with this notion because this “hidden power” helps to unveil the black boxes of society, such as cigarette smoking and its effects, and inform patients of its intricate details. “Apart from those who make science, who study it, who defend it or who submit to it, there exist, fortunately, a few people either trained as scientists or not, who open the black boxes so that outsiders may have a glimpse at it.” (Latour:15) Patients are able to understand the “black box” and will, therefore, attempt to follow guidelines produced by medical professionals in order to remain healthy and live a long painless life. This helps to maintain the power to the medical professionals without making it evident to the patients. Parson would also agree with the notion of a hidden society because it allows doctors to voice their concern for
The concepts discussed within the article regarding medicalization and changes within the field of medicine served to be new knowledge for me as the article addressed multiple different aspects regarding the growth of medicalization from a sociological standpoint. Furthermore, the article “The Shifting Engines of Medicalization” discussed the significant changes regarding medicalization that have evolved and are evidently practiced within the contemporary society today. For instance, changes have occurred within health policies, corporatized medicine, clinical freedom, authority and sovereignty exercised by physicians has reduced as other factors began to grow that gained importance within medical care (Conrad 4). Moreover, the article emphasized
Even in the medical field, male doctors were dominate to the hundreds of well educated midwives. “Male physicians are easily identified in town records and even in Martha’s diary, by the title “Doctor.” No local woman can be discovered that way” (Ulrich, 1990, pg.61). Martha was a part of this demoralized group of laborers. Unfortunately for her, “in twentieth-century terms, the ability to prescribe and dispense medicine made Martha a physician, while practical knowledge of gargles, bandages, poultices and clisters, as well as willingness to give extended care, defined her as a nurse” (Ulrich, 1990, pg.58). In her diary she even portrays doctors, not midwives, as inconsequential in a few medical
People trust doctors to save lives. Everyday millions of Americans swallow pills prescribed by doctors to alleviate painful symptoms of conditions they may have. Others entrust their lives to doctors, with full trust that the doctors have the patient’s best interests in mind. In cases such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, the Crownsville Hospital of the Negro Insane, and Joseph Mengele’s Research, doctors did not take care of the patients but instead focused on their self-interest. Rebecca Skloot, in her contemporary nonfiction novel The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, uses logos to reveal corruption in the medical field in order to protect individuals in the future.
Patient autonomy was the predominant concern during the time of publication of both Ezekiel and Linda Emanuel, and Edmund D. Pellegrino and David C. Thomasma's texts. During that time, the paternalistic model, in which a doctor uses their skills to understand the disease and choose a best course of action for the patient to take, had been replaced by the informative model, one which centered around patient autonomy. The latter model featured a relationship where the control over medical decisions was solely given to the patient and the doctor was reduced to a technical expert. Pellegrino and Thomasma and the Emanuel’s found that the shift from one extreme, the paternalistic model, to the other, the informative model, did not adequately move towards an ideal model. The problem with the informative model, according to the Emanuel’s, is that the autonomy described is simple, which means the model “presupposes that p...
Twenty four centuries ago, Hippocrates created the profession of medicine, for the first time in human history separating and refining the art of healing from primitive superstitions and religious rituals. His famous Oath forged medicine into what the Greeks called a technik, a craft requiring the entire person of the craftsman, an art that, according to Socrates in his dialogue Gorgias, involved virtue in the soul and spirit as well as the hands and brain. Yet Hippocrates made medicine more than a craft; he infused it with an intrinsic moral quality, creating a “union of medical skill and the integrity of the person [physician]” (Cameron, 2001).
The patient should have confident and trust in their doctor, but the doctor must also recognize that the patient is entitled to have an attitude to illness and his preferred way of tackling this (Turner-Warwick, 1994). Buchanan infers that paternalism eliminates an individual’s power of making their own choices and thus pressed into making decisions. To achieve public health goals, greater considerations must be directed toward promoting a mutual understanding of a just society (Buchanan, 2008). So, if people are given the choice to make certain decision over another, then they are still granted freedom of choice. Buchanan identifies 3 arguments in justifying paternalistic actions: informed consent, weak paternalism, and utilitarianism. To support his argument of informed consent, Buchanan admits there is no significant ethical concern because an individual may reach out to the professional for help, but it is problematic when an intervention is targeting the entire population (Buchanan, 2008). This point of view from Buchanan is flawed and completely limits what public health is all about. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines public health as “what we, as a society, do collectively to assure the conditions for people to be healthy.” With its use of the phrase “we, as a society,” the IOM emphasizes cooperative and mutually shared obligation and it also reinforces the notion that collective
Roger Higgs, in “On Telling Patients the Truth” supplies commonly used arguments for paternalistic deception. For the purposes of this paper, paternalism will be defined as, “interference with one’s autonomy or self determination for their own good.” The first argument for paternalistic deception is founded on the idea that medicine is a technical subject where there are very few guarantees (613). Thus, Higgs supplies the argument that not only is it impossible for a patient to understand the true breadth of their diagnosis and prognosis, but additionally that medical predictions are not medical truths. The second argument for paternalistic deception comes from the belief that patients do not actually want to know the truth about their condition, and could suffer from worse health outcomes if they are told the truth (614, 615).
Truth in medicine is a big discussion among many medical professionals about how doctors handle the truth. Truth to a patient can be presented in many ways and different doctors have different ways of handling it. Many often believe that patient’s being fully aware of their health; such as a bad diagnosis, could lead to depression compared to not knowing the diagnosis. In today’s society doctor’s are expected to deliver patient’s the whole truth in order for patients to actively make their own health decisions. Shelly K. Schwartz discusses the truth in her essay, Is It Ever Ok to Lie to Patients?. Schwartz argument is that patients should be told the truth about their health and presented and addressed in a way most comfortable to the patient.
...e gap in attitudes between pre-medicalized and modern time periods. The trends of technological advancement and human understanding project a completely medicalized future in which medical authorities cement their place above an intently obedient society.
During 1951 Parson was the first to debate about the sick role. According to Parson, there are the few expectations which need to be met before considering individual sick. Firstly, individual should not cause their own health problem an example could be by eating a high-fat food which leads to overweight and linked to type 2 diabetes. An individual receives a less sympathy. Secondly, individual who is sick must adamant to get well otherwise will see as faking the illness. Thirdly, an individual illness should be confirmed by a physician so they can follow the instruction. The relationship between the physician and the patient is hierarchical where the instruction is provided by the physician and followed by the
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
Based on the understanding of what it takes to be a patient. The medical model and parson are both at an agreement. According to Parson “the ‘obligation to “want to get well” …. And to seek professional help and social support: to actively seek professional help, to trust the physician and to follow medical advice. The doctor-patient relationship is set up to enable
Patients are forced to do what the doctor says because they are in fear of their illness and the help of someone specialized in the field will soothe them. The doctor in the story knows that there is an increasing number of cases of diphtheria, a fatal disease affecting young children and he also knows that if he does not get a diagnosis now then the girl will die in a, “bed of neglect”. It is because of this fear that the parents cooperate with the doctor and allow him to use brutal force to open the girl’s mouth. The doctor possess power over the patient already has. While the doctor is in a calm state the patient is usually gripped with fear. This fear puts the patient in a bad position because the doctor doesn’t need to worry since he doesn’t have the illness. If the doctor is ignored then the patient runs the risk of dying from a disease they could have prevented and that in itself is very powerful. The patient will blindly trust the doctor because of the slur of emotions and panic. However what will happen if all the power of the doctor was removed? Will the world be a better place? Personally I believe that there needs to be some form of authority that a doctor must possess in order for
In his essay, “The Refutation of Medical Paternalism,” Alan Goldman discusses his argument against differentiation in the roles between physicians and patients. He says the physician may act against a patient’s will in order treat the patient in their best interest. Goldman makes his whole argument around the assumption that a person’s right to decide his or her future is the most important and fundamental right, saying, “the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not to be sacrificed for the sake of them.” His claim is that most people agree that they are the best judges of their own self-interest and there is an innate value in the freedom to determine their own future. On these principles, Goldman starts by discussing conditions under which paternalism may be justified.
In this article written by David Hemenway, Why We Don’t Spend enough on Public Health it takes a look at how public health versus the practice of medicine viewed. The article describes Public Health as the underdog and the poor relation in the Field of Medicine. Public Health doesn’t receive the accolades that the Practice of Medicine gets, clearly outlined in the article Practice of Medicine being “flashy and accomplishment widely celebrated”, whereas Public Health described as “being mundane and invisible.” (Hemenway, 2010) This article shines a light on how underappreciated and less notoriety, Public Health receives; the writer, however, places emphases on the important role it plays in society. Hemenway touches on how underfunded and that