Engagement and suffering in responsible caregiving: On overcoming maleficience in health care

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 17 (3) (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The thesis of this article is that engagement and suffering are essential aspects of responsible caregiving. The sense of medical responsibility engendered by engaged caregiving is referred to herein as clinical phronesis, i.e. practical wisdom in health care, or, simply, practical health care wisdom. The idea of clinical phronesis calls to mind a relational or communicative sense of medical responsibility which can best be understood as a kind of virtue ethics, yet one that is informed by the exigencies of moral discourse and dialogue, as well as by the technical rigors of formal reasoning. The ideal of clinical phronesis is not (necessarily) contrary to the more common understandings of medical responsibility as either beneficence or patient autonomy — except, of course, when these notions are taken in their disengaged form (reflecting the malaise of modern medicine). Clinical phronesis, which gives rise to a deeper, broader, and richer, yet also to a more complex, sense than these other notions connote, holds the promise both of expanding, correcting, and perhaps completing what it currently means to be a fully responsible health care provider. In engaged caregiving, providers appropriately suffer with the patient, that is, they suffer the exigencies of the patient's affliction (though not his or her actual loss) by consenting to its inescapability. In disengaged caregiving — that ruse Katz has described as the silent world of doctor and patient — provides may deny or refuse any given connection with the patient, especially the inevitability of the patient's affliction and suffering (and, by parody of reasoning, the inevitability of their own. When, however, responsibility is construed qualitatively as an evaluative feature of medical rationality, rather than quantitatively as a form of calculative reasoning only, responsibility can be viewed more broadly as not only a matter of science and will, but of language and communication as well — in particular, as the task of responsibly narrating and interpreting the patient's story of illness. In summary, the question is not whether phronesis can save the life of medical ethics — only responsible humans can do that! Instead, the question should be whether phronesis, as an ethical requirement of health care delivery, can prevent the death of medical ethics.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,127

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Hermeneutics of medicine in the wake of Gadamer: The issue of phronesis.Fredrik Svenaeus - 2003 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (5):407-431.
Palliative care and cancer trials.S. M. Brown - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (6):371-371.
Promoting patient autonomy: Looking back.Gene H. Stollerman - 1984 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 5 (1).
Promoting critical thinking in health care: Phronesis and criticality.Stephen Tyreman - 2000 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3 (2):117-124.
Theoretical aids in teaching medical ethics.Michael H. Kottow - 1999 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2 (3):225-229.
The virtue of moral responsibility and the obligations of patients.Candace Cummins Gauthier - 2005 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (2):153 – 166.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
30 (#550,897)

6 months
30 (#108,935)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Dawson S. Schultz
University of California, Santa Cruz

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references