Ordinary defensive medicine: in the shadows of general practitioners' postures toward (over-)medicalisation.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1186/s13010-024-00160-0
Michaël Cordey, Sophia Chatelard, Daniel Widmer, Patrick Ouvrard, Lilli Herzig
{"title":"Ordinary defensive medicine: in the shadows of general practitioners' postures toward (over-)medicalisation.","authors":"Michaël Cordey, Sophia Chatelard, Daniel Widmer, Patrick Ouvrard, Lilli Herzig","doi":"10.1186/s13010-024-00160-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper draws on qualitative research using focus groups involving 38 general practitioners (GPs). It explores their attitudes and feelings about (over-)medicalisation. Our main findings were that GPs had a complex representation of (over-)medicalisation, composed of many professional, social, technological, economic and relational issues. This representation led GPs to feel uncomfortable. They felt pressure from all sides, which led them to question their social roles and responsibilities. We identified four main GP-driven proposals to deal with (over-)medicalisation: (1) focusing on the communication in doctor-patient relationships; (2) grounding practices in evidence-based medicine; (3) relying on clinical skills, experience and intuition; and (4) promoting training, leadership bodies and social movements. Drawing on these proposals, we identify and discuss five paradigms that underpin GPs' attitudes toward (over-)medicalisation: underlying social factors, preventing medicalisation, managing uncertainties, sharing medical decision-making and thinking about care as a rationale. We suggest that these paradigms constitute a defensive posture against GPs' uncomfortable feelings. All five defensive paradigms were identified in our focus groups, echoing contemporary political debates on public health. This non-exhaustive framework forms the outline of what we call ordinary defensive medicine. GPs' uncomfortable feelings are the origin of their defensive solutions and the manifestation of their vulnerability. This professional vulnerability can be shared with the patient's vulnerability. In our view, this creates an opportunity to rediscover patient-doctor relationships and examine patients' and doctors' vulnerabilities together.\"There are many cases in which-though the signs of a confusion of tongues between the patient and his doctor are painfully present-there is apparently no open controversy. Some of these cases demonstrate the working of two other, often interlinked, factors. One is the patient's increasing anxiety and despair, resulting in more and more fervently clamouring demands for help. Often the doctor's response is guilt feelings and despair that his most conscientious, most carefully devised examinations do not seem to throw real light on the patient's \"illness\", that his most erudite, most modern, most circumspect therapy does not bring real relief.\" (Balint M. The Doctor, His Patient and the Illness. New York: International Universities; 2005. [1957].)\"Theories about care put an unprecedented emphasis on vulnerability-taking up that challenge to transform what really counts in today's hospitals implies letting colleagues inside previously closely guarded professional boundaries\" (2, our translation).</p>","PeriodicalId":56062,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","volume":"19 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11251099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-024-00160-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper draws on qualitative research using focus groups involving 38 general practitioners (GPs). It explores their attitudes and feelings about (over-)medicalisation. Our main findings were that GPs had a complex representation of (over-)medicalisation, composed of many professional, social, technological, economic and relational issues. This representation led GPs to feel uncomfortable. They felt pressure from all sides, which led them to question their social roles and responsibilities. We identified four main GP-driven proposals to deal with (over-)medicalisation: (1) focusing on the communication in doctor-patient relationships; (2) grounding practices in evidence-based medicine; (3) relying on clinical skills, experience and intuition; and (4) promoting training, leadership bodies and social movements. Drawing on these proposals, we identify and discuss five paradigms that underpin GPs' attitudes toward (over-)medicalisation: underlying social factors, preventing medicalisation, managing uncertainties, sharing medical decision-making and thinking about care as a rationale. We suggest that these paradigms constitute a defensive posture against GPs' uncomfortable feelings. All five defensive paradigms were identified in our focus groups, echoing contemporary political debates on public health. This non-exhaustive framework forms the outline of what we call ordinary defensive medicine. GPs' uncomfortable feelings are the origin of their defensive solutions and the manifestation of their vulnerability. This professional vulnerability can be shared with the patient's vulnerability. In our view, this creates an opportunity to rediscover patient-doctor relationships and examine patients' and doctors' vulnerabilities together."There are many cases in which-though the signs of a confusion of tongues between the patient and his doctor are painfully present-there is apparently no open controversy. Some of these cases demonstrate the working of two other, often interlinked, factors. One is the patient's increasing anxiety and despair, resulting in more and more fervently clamouring demands for help. Often the doctor's response is guilt feelings and despair that his most conscientious, most carefully devised examinations do not seem to throw real light on the patient's "illness", that his most erudite, most modern, most circumspect therapy does not bring real relief." (Balint M. The Doctor, His Patient and the Illness. New York: International Universities; 2005. [1957].)"Theories about care put an unprecedented emphasis on vulnerability-taking up that challenge to transform what really counts in today's hospitals implies letting colleagues inside previously closely guarded professional boundaries" (2, our translation).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
普通的防御性医疗:全科医生对(过度)医疗化的态度的阴影。
本文以定性研究为基础,采用焦点小组的形式,涉及 38 名全科医生(GPs)。本文探讨了他们对(过度)医疗化的态度和感受。我们的主要发现是,全科医生对(过度)医疗化有一个复杂的表述,由许多专业、社会、技术、经济和关系问题组成。这种表象使全科医生感到不安。他们感受到了来自各方的压力,这使他们对自己的社会角色和责任产生了质疑。为应对(过度)医疗化,我们提出了四项主要由全科医生推动的建议:(1)注重医患关系中的沟通;(2)以循证医学为实践基础;(3)依靠临床技能、经验和直觉;以及(4)促进培训、领导机构和社会运动。根据这些建议,我们确定并讨论了支撑全科医生对(过度)医疗化态度的五种范式:潜在的社会因素、预防医疗化、管理不确定性、共享医疗决策以及将护理视为一种理由。我们认为,这些范式构成了对全科医生不舒服感觉的一种防御姿态。在焦点小组中,我们发现了所有五种防御范式,与当代公共卫生的政治辩论相呼应。这个并非详尽无遗的框架构成了我们所说的普通防御性医疗的轮廓。全科医生的不适感是其防御性解决方案的起源,也是其脆弱性的体现。这种职业脆弱性可以与病人的脆弱性共存。在我们看来,这为重新发现医患关系、共同审视病人和医生的弱点创造了机会。"在许多病例中,虽然病人和医生之间的言语混乱迹象令人痛苦,但显然并没有公开的争议。在这些病例中,有一些病例显示出另外两个往往相互关联的因素在起作用。其一是病人越来越焦虑和绝望,导致越来越强烈地要求帮助。医生的反应往往是内疚和绝望,因为他最认真、最精心设计的检查似乎并没有真正揭示病人的 "疾病",他最博学、最现代、最谨慎的治疗也没有带来真正的缓解"。(巴林特-M.《医生、病人与疾病》。纽约:纽约:国际大学;2005 年。[1957])"关于护理的理论前所未有地强调脆弱性--接受这一挑战,改变当今医院中真正重要的东西,意味着让同事们进入以前严加防范的专业界限"(2,我们的翻译)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine considers articles on the philosophy of medicine and biology, and on ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses all aspects of the philosophy of medicine and biology, and the ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. It also considers papers at the intersection of medicine and humanities, including the history of medicine, that are relevant to contemporary philosophy of medicine and bioethics. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is the official publication of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center.
期刊最新文献
Assessing attitudes toward research and plagiarism among medical students: a multi-site study. Ordinary defensive medicine: in the shadows of general practitioners' postures toward (over-)medicalisation. Intersectionality and discriminatory practices within mentalhealth care. The modern-day "Rest Cure": "The yellow Wallpaper" and underrepresentation in clinical research. Epistemic appropriation and the ethics of engaging with trans community knowledge in the context of mental healthcare research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1