Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Student interpretations on william carlos williams the use of force
Student interpretations on william carlos williams the use of force
Student interpretations on william carlos williams the use of force
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Use of Force, written by William Carlos Williams is a story about a conflicted unnamed doctor using physical force to determine a diagnosis. The question that is brought up is whether or not the doctor’s use of force was one of ethical duty or infuriating violence. The doctor makes it his duty to save the patient, Mathilda as she does not cooperate he makes a choice to go on and use force to open her mouth to determine her diagnosis. The choice of using force isn’t necessarily the questionable part, the motive on using physical force is debatable. The ultimate question that the short story, the Use of Force asks is whether or not the doctor’s motives become one of compassion or desirable violence.
As the story begins, the unnamed doctor is introduced as one who appears to be strictly professional. “Aas often, in such cases, they weren’t telling me more than they had to, it was up to me to tell them; that’s why they were spending three dollars on me.” (par. 3) The doctor leaves the first impression that he is one that keeps his attention about the job and nothing out of the ordinary besides stating his impressions on the mother, father and the patient, Mathilda. Though he does manage to note that Mathilda has a fever. The doctor takes what he considers a “trial shot” and “point of departure” by inquiring what he suspects is a sore throat (par. 6). This point in the story, nothing remains out of the ordinary or questionable about the doctor’s methods, until the story further develops.
The doctor contains his professionalism, but as it goes on, pieces of frustrated irregularities begin to surface. As the doctor learns that the parents say no, that the girl says she doesn’t have a sore throat, he pursues the question further. “H...
... middle of paper ...
...der what motive? He had to justify his motives, perhaps to add some morality to ensure what he was doing was ethical. He would flip that thought, perhaps to try and downplay his desire to unleash his violent frustration onto the girl. He ultimately saved Mathilda’s life in a sense, but under which motive? I believe the this is the question William Carlos Williams’ The Use of Force has the reader ask themselves. Under a emergency situation the human condition can be torn between a code of ethics or a dominance of dark desire. No doubt in The Use of Force, the end of the situation turned out well as the girl could be saved, but the method to find out was ambiguous. How well would the case between doing the right thing and doing what you desire turn out in any other situation? I believe this is the question that William Carlos Williams wanted the reader to think about.
The main medical issues in this novel are related to the suspicious deaths of individuals in contact with Dr. Moe Mathis and medical malpractice cases. First of all, Casey, Mathis’s young and healthy colt died of a sudden death. As Dr. Mathis performed an autopsy on him, he found that the horse ingested blue pills. He identified the pills as Coumadin, a blood thinner. This would explain the animal’s death due to an extensive hemorrhage. Hence, his death would probably be a premediated murder. Moreover, Mr. Swensen, a patient of Dr. Mathis whom was diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer, shortly died after surgery of a cause identified as pulmonary embolus. It was found that he was misdiagnosed and did not have any cancer at all. This showed a medical
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
In her personal essay, Dr. Grant writes that she learned that most cases involving her patients should not be only handled from a doctor’s point of view but also from personal experience that can help her relate to each patient regardless of their background; Dr. Grant was taught this lesson when she came face to face with a unique patient. Throughout her essay, Dr. Grant writes about how she came to contact with a patient she had nicknamed Mr. G. According to Dr. Grant, “Mr. G is the personification of the irate, belligerent patient that you always dread dealing with because he is usually implacable” (181). It is evident that Dr. Grant lets her position as a doctor greatly impact her judgement placed on her patients, this is supported as she nicknamed the current patient Mr.G . To deal with Mr. G, Dr. Grant resorts to using all the skills she
In the essay “When Doctors Make Mistakes” written by Atul Gawande, he writes a first-hand account of mistakes made by himself and his colleagues. The essay is divided into five parts, each named to the narrative and emotions of the story he would tell. In each story he tells, he uses such vivid language that we as readers feel as if we are one of his colleagues. Each section has its own importance to the whole point he was trying to get across, ““All doctors make terrible mistakes” (657).
Diligence is a virtue. This is a theme Atul Gawande presents to the reader throughout Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance. In each story, Gawande provides insight on medical studies he has previously embarked upon. For example, in “The Mop-up” the author tells us about a time when he went to India to observe the efforts to eradicate polio. Gawande explains how he followed a supervisor around and how vaccinations were performed. Additionally, in another chapter he debates on whether physicians should take part in death sentences. Throughout his adventures Gawande provides numerous enriching personal accounts of controversial events and what it is like to be a doctor; each with diligence playing a key part.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
At first glance, this case might appear to be ethically sound and the conduct of Dr. Fox was that of a normal Western doctor. However, upon further analysis a large number of issues arise. The debate over whether to inform Leyla about her diagnosis in the above case arises from the conflicting cultural norms between Leyla’s family and the attending physician. One of the main ethical questions is: was it necessary for Dr. Fox to disregard the family’s wishes, religion and cultural norms. By refusing to wait for Mr. Ansari to pray, insisting on telling Leyla himself and interrupting Mrs. Ansari’s prayer, Dr. Fox was insensitive to the patient and family’s religious and cultural needs. Furthermore, insisting on telling Leyla himself, even though he noticed that she was stressed and her family informed him that she was too vulnerable at the time to handle her diagnosis, brings up issues of competence. There is also the issue of informed consent and confidentiality when Dr. Fox employs the friend as a translator without her or Leyla’s authorization. In addition, instead of providing options in the prognosis, Dr. Fox gives a recommendation and does not discuss any other possible prognoses.
In “Should Doctors Tell the Truth?” Joseph Collins argues for paternalistic deception, declaring that it is permissible for physicians to deceive their patients when it is in their best interests. Collins considers his argument from a “pragmatic” standpoint, rather than a moral one, and uses his experience with the sick to justify paternalistic deception. Collins argues that in his years of practicing, he has encountered four types of patients who want to know the truth: those that want to know so they know how much time they have left, those who do not want to know and may suffer if told the truth, those who are incapable of hearing the truth, and those who do not have a serious diagnosis (605). Collins follows with the assertion that the more serious the condition is, the less likely the patient is to seek information about their health (606).
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.
"The Use of Force--William Carlos Williams (1883-1963)." Classic Short Stories. B&L Associates, Bangor, Maine, U.S.A., 1995-2007. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. .
"The Use of Force" by William Carlos Williams is a window into one doctor's guilt over the negligent loss of a child patient. This story focuses on the disillusionment caused by his self-pity and guilt. The doctor's guilt triggers a fanciful illusion of "The Use of Force" that gives him giddy delight in his envisioned torture of the young, beautiful girl. His disgust for her uneducated, immigrant parents and their poor, humble surroundings only heighten this image. But his justification of these imagined actions empowers him all the more. He perceives himself above these less than human creatures, as a master lords over his good for nothing dog. In his self-empowered greatness he comes face to face with the greatest flaw any doctor can have, lack of humanity and compassion for those lesser then himself.
Now that we have seen the shortcomings of two popular views of violence, Coady proposes his positive account; namely, that we ought to adopt a restricted definition. He begins with a dictionary definition (physical force with intent to damage/injure another), but he then observes that this is too restrictive and that we ought to include some psychological considerations. A restricted definition, Coady argues, is less morally loaded than the other two views given that it allows us to call an act a violent one without being committed (at least not as committed as the other views) to a certain ethical
...der what motive? He had to justify his motives, perhaps to add some morality to ensure what he was doing was ethical. He would flip that thought, perhaps to try and downplay his desire to unleash his violent frustration onto the girl. He ultimately saved Mathilda’s life in a sense, but under which motive? I believe the this is the question William Carlos Williams’ The Use of Force has the reader ask themselves. Under a emergency situation the human condition can be torn between a code of ethics or a dominance of dark desire. No doubt in The Use of Force, the end of the situation turned out well as the girl could be saved, but the method to find out was ambiguous. How well would the case between doing the right thing and doing what you desire turn out in any other situation? I believe this is the question that William Carlos Williams wanted the reader to think about.
• The doctor’s dilemma is that if he leaves the girl alone he will not be able to check if she has Diphtheria and may possibly die. If he continues on the road he’s going he will have to resort to measures that are socially unacceptable and even cruel.
In the short story her dad helps the doctor check her throat. This helps show that even the father in the story believes that this must be done. The doctor did ask tell the parents that if they do not want him to inspect the throat he will not insist, but it will require her to go to the hospital. This ties into that they already paid to have the doctor there, and they would like to make sure she was sick before they spend the money at the hospital. Since the story was during the great depression the family may have been poor, and could not afford much.