AMBIENTUM BIOETHICA BIOLOGIA CHEMIA DIGITALIA DRAMATICA EDUCATIO ARTIS GYMNAST. ENGINEERING EPHEMERIDES EUROPAEA GEOGRAPHIA GEOLOGIA HISTORIA HISTORIA ARTIUM INFORMATICA IURISPRUDENTIA MATHEMATICA MUSICA NEGOTIA OECONOMICA PHILOLOGIA PHILOSOPHIA PHYSICA POLITICA PSYCHOLOGIA-PAEDAGOGIA SOCIOLOGIA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA LATIN THEOLOGIA GR.-CATH. VARAD THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA THEOLOGIA REF. TRANSYLVAN
Rezumat articol ediţie STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI
În partea de jos este prezentat rezumatul articolului selectat. Pentru revenire la cuprinsul ediţiei din care face parte acest articol, se accesează linkul din titlu. Pentru vizualizarea tuturor articolelor din arhivă la care este autor/coautor unul din autorii de mai jos, se accesează linkul din numele autorului.
Autori: ANCA STERIE, EVE RUBLI TRUCHARD, RALF J JOX.
DOI: 10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.115
Published Online: 2021-06-30
Published Print: 2021-06-30
pp. 169
FULL PDF
ABSTRACT: Parallel Session IV, Room 7 Health decisions occur in a rich context in which social influences are omnipresent. The tendency to compare oneself with others has been described as one of the critical social factors influencing decision making. Based on a collection of 43 audio-recordings of hospital admission encounters which were analyzed though a conversation analytic methodology, we present findings and reflections in regard to how patients and physicians discuss cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. The phenomena of interest concerns how and when patients and physicians refer to what other people decide (for example: “Often the patients tell us: No futile care”). This practice is encountered in 6 of the conversations recorded. Reference to other people’s decisions is a way to talk about options, but it does much more than just enumerating them. As a resource in interaction, this reference is employed when the patient can’t or doesn’t express a preference (thereby clarifying options) or when the preference the patient expressed is problematic (because contrary to expectations). By using this reference, decision making is projected as a matter of membership to a group of individuals, and not as a matter of individual prognostic. The ethical implications of referring to other people’s choices are significant, since it can influence the patient and pose a serious threat to autonomous decisions. We argue that findings such as ours, stemming from data-driven studies of healthcare communication, are pivotal for informing ethics education in its effort to address the biases that physicians impose upon patients during decision making.
