Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in patient-physician relationships: III. Negotiation

  • Published:
Journal of Medical Humanities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since beliefs, interests, needs and values vary among individuals, potential for conflict or dispute exists in all areas of human endeavor, including a patient-physician relationship. Conflict- or dispute-resolution requires diligent and directed negotiation, which ideally is amicable, efficient, and sustainable, if the participants acknowledge the identity, individuality, and integrity of all parties involved. In this essay a concept ofprincipled negotiation is extrapolated to a patient-physician relationship and is exemplified by a case study. In addition, the validity of a concept oftract two diplomacy is discussed, relevant from the perspective of strained or fractured primary relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Engel GL, Schmale A: The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine.Science.196 126–136, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Szasz TS, Hollender M: The basic models of the doctor-patient relationship.Arch. Int. Med. 97 585–592, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lain-Entralgo P:Doctor and Patient. World University Library, London, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Childress JF, Siegler M: Metaphors and models of doctor-patient relationships: Their implications for autonomy.Theor. Med. 5 17–30, 1984.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Siegler M: A right to health care: Ambiguity, professional responsibility, and patient liberty.J. Med. Phil. 4 148–157, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Siegler M: Searching for moral certainty in medicine: A proposal for a new model of the doctor-patient encounter.Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. 57 56–69, 1981.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Siegler M: The physician-patient accommodation: A central event in clinical medicine.Arch. Int. Med. 142 1899–1902, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Siegler M: The progression of medicine. From physician paternalism to patient autonomy to bureaucratic parsimony.Arch. Int. Med. 145 713–715, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thomasma DC: The basis of medicine and religion: Respect for persons.Hosp. Prog. 60 54–57, 90, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thomasma DC: Beyond medical paternalism and patient autonomy: A model of physician conscience for the physician-patient relationship.Ann. Int. Med. 98 243–248, 1983.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Thomasma DC: Limitations of the autonomy model for the doctor-patient relationship.Pharos 46 2–5, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Thomasma DC: Autonomy in the doctor-patient relation.Theor. Med. 5 1–7, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rodning CB, Dacso CC: Realistic Expectations of a Patient-Physician Encounter.South. Med. J. 80 1208–1209, 1987.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. D'aunay D, Rodning CB: Patient-Physician Interaction: Healing Power of a Covenantal Relationship.Humane Medicine.4 107–109, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rodning CB: Coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in patient-physician relationships: I. Leadership of a physician.J. Med. Hum. 13 91–101, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rodning CB: Coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in patient-physician relationships: II.Traditio Argumentum Respectus. J. Med. Hum. 13 147–156, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher R, Ury W:Getting to Yes. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books Ltd., London, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Millhauser MS, Pon CJ (Editors):Sourcebook: Federal Agency Use of Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution. Office of the Chairman, Administrative Conference of the United States, 1987.

  19. Montiville JV, Davidson WD: Foreign policy according to Freud.Foreign Policy, Winter, 1981–1982, 145–157.

  20. Volkan VD: The need to have enemies and allies: A developmental approach.Political Psychology, June, 1985, 219–248.

  21. Wedge B: A psychiatric model for intercession in intergroup conflict.J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 7 733–761, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Binnendijk H (Editor):National Negotiating Styles. Center for the Study of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Department of State, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  23. McDonald JW Jr., Bendahmane DB (Editors):Conflict resolution: Track two diplomacy. Center for the Study of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Service Institute, U. S. Department of State, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1987.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, USA

    Charles B. Rodning M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S. (Vice-Chairman)

  2. College of Medicine, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama

    Charles B. Rodning M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S. (Vice-Chairman)

Authors
  1. Charles B. Rodning M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rodning, C.B. Coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in patient-physician relationships: III. Negotiation. J Med Hum 13, 211–222 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01137419

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01137419

Keywords

Search

Navigation