Against the Phrase "Aggressive Care".

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI:10.1017/S096318012400077X
Trevor M Bibler
{"title":"Against the Phrase \"Aggressive Care\".","authors":"Trevor M Bibler","doi":"10.1017/S096318012400077X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Language is the primary technology clinical ethicists use as they offer guidance about norms. Like any other piece of technology, to use the technology well requires attention, intention, skill, and knowledge. Word choice becomes a matter of professional practice. The Brief Report offers clinical ethicists several reasons for rejecting the phrase \"aggressive care.\" Instead, ethicists should consider replacing \"aggressive care\" with the adjacent concept of a \"recovery-focused path.\" The virtues of this neologism include: the opportunity to set aside the emotion of \"aggression,\" the phrase's accuracy when capturing the intention of the patient or their representative, and an unappreciated rhetorical force-and transparent logic-that arises when the patient's recovery is unlikely.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"513-515"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S096318012400077X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Language is the primary technology clinical ethicists use as they offer guidance about norms. Like any other piece of technology, to use the technology well requires attention, intention, skill, and knowledge. Word choice becomes a matter of professional practice. The Brief Report offers clinical ethicists several reasons for rejecting the phrase "aggressive care." Instead, ethicists should consider replacing "aggressive care" with the adjacent concept of a "recovery-focused path." The virtues of this neologism include: the opportunity to set aside the emotion of "aggression," the phrase's accuracy when capturing the intention of the patient or their representative, and an unappreciated rhetorical force-and transparent logic-that arises when the patient's recovery is unlikely.

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
反对“侵略性护理”一词。
语言是临床伦理学家在提供规范指导时使用的主要技术。像任何其他技术一样,使用好这项技术需要注意力、意图、技巧和知识。选词成为一种专业实践。这份简短报告为临床伦理学家提供了几个拒绝“积极治疗”一词的理由。相反,伦理学家应该考虑用相邻的“以康复为中心的路径”概念取代“积极护理”。这个新词的优点包括:有机会抛开“侵略”的情绪,这个短语在捕捉病人或他们的代表的意图时的准确性,以及当病人不太可能康复时出现的一种不被欣赏的修辞力量和透明的逻辑。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
期刊最新文献
The Brain, a Living and Thinking Machine. Teaching Bioethics Today: Waking from Dogmatic Curricular Slumbers. Medical Trainees Abroad: Neglected Human Rights Considerations. When Suicide is not a Self-Killing: Advance Decisions and Psychological Discontinuity-Part II. The Impact of a Study Trip to Auschwitz: Place-based Learning for Bioethics Education and Professional Identity Formation.
×
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:604180095
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