In recent years the literature on bioethics has begun to pose the sociological challenge of how to explore organisational processes that facilitate a systemic response to ethical concerns. The present discussion seeks to make a contribution to this important new direction in ethical research by presenting findings from an Australian pilot study. The research was initiated by the Clinical Ethics Committee of Redland Hospital at Bayside Health Service District in Queensland, Australia, and explores health professionals’ understanding of the nature of (...) ethics and their experience with ethical decision-making within an acute medical ward. This study focuses on the actual experience, understanding and attitudes of clinical professionals in a general medical ward. In particular, the discussion explores the specific findings from the study concerned with how a multi-disciplinary team of health professionals define and operationalise the notion of ethics in an acute ward hospital setting. The key issue reported is that health professionals are not only able to clearly articulate notions of ethics, but that the notions expressed by a multi-disciplinary diversity of participants share a common definitional concept of ethics as patient-centred care. The central finding is that all professional groups indicated that there is a guiding principle to address their ethical sense of the ‘good’ or the ‘ought’ and that is to act in a way that furthered the interests of patients and their families. The findings affirm the importance of a sociological perspective as a productive new direction in bioethical research. (shrink)

It describes and explains the patient-centered model examining and evaluating qualitative and quantitative research. It comprehensively covers the evolution and the six interactive components of the patient-centered clinical method, taking the reader through the relationships between the patient and doctor and the patient and clinician. All the editors are professors in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

Recently adopted health care practices and policies describe themselves as “patient-centered care.” The meaning of the term, however, remains contested and obscure. This paper offers a typology of “patient-centered care” models that aims to contribute to greater clarity about, continuing discussion of, and further advances in patient-centered care. The paper imposes an original analytic framework on extensive material covering mostly US health care and health policy topics over several decades. It finds that four models of patient-centered care emphasize: patients versus (...) their parts; patients versus providers; patients/providers/states versus “the system”; and patients and providers as persons. Each type is distinguishable along three dimensions: epistemological orientations, practical accommodations, and policy tools. Based on this analysis, the paper recommends that four questions be asked of any proposal that claims to provide patient-centered care: Is this care a means to an end or an end in itself? Are patients here subjects or objects? Are patients here individuals or aggregates? How do we know what patients want and need? The typology reveals that models are neither entirely compatible nor entirely incompatible and may be usefully combined in certain practices and policies. In other instances, internal contradictions may jeopardize the realization of coherent patient-centered care. (shrink)

Background For a variety of sociological reasons, different types of centredness have become important in health and social care. In trying to characterize one type of centredness, we were led to consider, at a conceptual level, the importance of the notion of centredness in general and the reasons for there being different types of centeredness. Method We searched the literature for papers on client-, family-, patient-, person- and relationship- centred care. We identified reviews or papers that defined or discussed the (...) notions at a conceptual level. The reviews and papers were analyzed as text transcripts. Results We identified 10 themes that were common to all the types of centredness. At a conceptual level we could not identify thematic differences between the types of centredness. These findings were subjected to a philosophical critique using ideas derived from Wittgenstein. Conclusion Different types of centredness are required in different contexts. The differences are justified by their practical utility. The unifying themes of centredness, however, reflect a movement in favour of increasing the social, psychological, cultural and ethical sensitivity of our human encounters. (shrink)

Abstract.The United Kingdom Department of Health initiative on “The Expert Patient” (2001) reflects recent trends in political philosophy, ethics and health services research. The overall objective of the initiative is to encourage patients, particularly those suffering from chronic conditions to become more actively involved in decisions concerning their treatment. In doing so there would be (perhaps) an expectation of better patient compliance and (arguably) a resultant improvement in quality of life. Despite these anticipated beneficial influences on health outcomes, there may (...) be a danger that such initiatives are being carried along by the general swell of enthusiasm for recognising and facilitating the claims of disadvantaged or discriminated against groups. What more attractive than that patients should be “liberated” from what might be seen as the oppression of medical paternalism? To a great extent the potential for success of the Expert Patient venture turns on:(a) whether and to what extent a patient can be considered truly to be an expert and (b) full acceptance by the medical and heath care professions of allowing patients a more equitable and positive role.Whilst clearly the patient is an expert in the hermeneutic sense – it is they and they alone who experience their illness – there is nevertheless a risk of confusing experience with expertise. Experience limited to an individual does not of itself give rise to the generalisations that underlie reliable clinical treatment. Neither do the vast majority of patients possess the physiological and pharmacological knowledge to fully appreciate the biological nature of their illness nor the basis, risks or limitations of therapeutic measures. Might the notion of “The Expert Patient” as informed co-decision maker become a well-meaning but rather vacuous aspiration similar to that of informed consent? Even worse, could patient “empowerment” have a deleterious effect? The paper reviews some of the major issues and concludes that the expert patient initiative could have benefits for both patients and health professionals if operated on the basis of concordance: an informed collaborative alliance that optimises the potential benefits of medical care. (shrink)

Foucault and Social Dialogue; Beyond Fragmentation is a compelling yet extremely clear investigation of these options and offers a new way forward. Christopher Falzon argues that the proper alternative to foundationalism is not fragmentation but dialogue and that such a dialogical picture can be found in the work of Michel Foucault. Such a reading of Foucault allows us to see, for the first time, the ethical and political position implicit in Foucault's work and how his work contributes to the larger (...) debate concerning the death of man. (shrink)

Given his heralding of the "death of Man" or the "death of the subject", Michel Foucault's work is thought by many to be too fragmentary and anti-foundationalist to be much use for building any sort of ethical or political theory. Chris Falzon challenges this position, arguing that the proper alternative to foundationalism is not fragmentation but dialogue and that concept can be found in Foucault's work. Such a reading of Foucault allows us to see the ethical and political position implicit (...) his work, and how his work contributes to the larger debate concerning the death of Man. This book also presents a rethinking of the debates between Habermas and Foucault and shows how Foucault's work can be used to effectively challenge Habermas' position. Foucault and Social Dialogue provides a compelling reinterpretation of Foucault's legacy. (shrink)