作为消费者的病人:赋权还是商品化?

M. Goldstein, Daniel Bowers
{"title":"作为消费者的病人:赋权还是商品化?","authors":"M. Goldstein, Daniel Bowers","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2441786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discussions surrounding patient engagement and empowerment often use the terms \"patient\" and \"consumer\" interchangeably. But do the two terms hold the same meaning, or is a \"patient\" a passive actor in the health care arena and a \"consumer\" an informed, rational decision-maker? Has there been a shift in our usage of the two terms that aligns with the increasing commercialization of health care in the U.S. or has the patient/consumer dynamic always been a part of the buying and selling of health care in the American system? A quick scan of the literature produces discussions of the issue in the popular press by authors such as Paul Krugman and Leana Wen, and in social media forums such as TEDMED, but no direct analyses in the academic literature of the ethical, legal, and policy ramifications of this possible shift in terminology. This paper will analyze our usage of the terms and any recent changes in the dynamic as well as discuss the ethical, legal, and policy implications of this simple terminology for the physician-patient relationship.","PeriodicalId":230649,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Patient as Consumer: Empowerment or Commodification?\",\"authors\":\"M. Goldstein, Daniel Bowers\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2441786\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Discussions surrounding patient engagement and empowerment often use the terms \\\"patient\\\" and \\\"consumer\\\" interchangeably. But do the two terms hold the same meaning, or is a \\\"patient\\\" a passive actor in the health care arena and a \\\"consumer\\\" an informed, rational decision-maker? Has there been a shift in our usage of the two terms that aligns with the increasing commercialization of health care in the U.S. or has the patient/consumer dynamic always been a part of the buying and selling of health care in the American system? A quick scan of the literature produces discussions of the issue in the popular press by authors such as Paul Krugman and Leana Wen, and in social media forums such as TEDMED, but no direct analyses in the academic literature of the ethical, legal, and policy ramifications of this possible shift in terminology. This paper will analyze our usage of the terms and any recent changes in the dynamic as well as discuss the ethical, legal, and policy implications of this simple terminology for the physician-patient relationship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"102 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2441786\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2441786","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

围绕患者参与和授权的讨论经常交替使用“患者”和“消费者”这两个术语。但是,这两个术语是否具有相同的含义,或者“患者”是医疗保健领域的被动参与者,而“消费者”是知情的、理性的决策者?我们对这两个术语的使用是否发生了变化,这与美国医疗保健日益商业化的趋势相一致,或者患者/消费者的动态是否一直是美国医疗保健系统买卖的一部分?快速浏览一下文献,就会发现保罗·克鲁格曼(Paul Krugman)和莉娜·温(Leana Wen)等作家在大众媒体上以及TEDMED等社交媒体论坛上讨论了这个问题,但在学术文献中却没有对这种术语可能发生的转变所带来的伦理、法律和政策后果进行直接分析。本文将分析我们对这些术语的使用以及动态中的任何最新变化,并讨论这个简单术语对医患关系的伦理,法律和政策含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Patient as Consumer: Empowerment or Commodification?
Discussions surrounding patient engagement and empowerment often use the terms "patient" and "consumer" interchangeably. But do the two terms hold the same meaning, or is a "patient" a passive actor in the health care arena and a "consumer" an informed, rational decision-maker? Has there been a shift in our usage of the two terms that aligns with the increasing commercialization of health care in the U.S. or has the patient/consumer dynamic always been a part of the buying and selling of health care in the American system? A quick scan of the literature produces discussions of the issue in the popular press by authors such as Paul Krugman and Leana Wen, and in social media forums such as TEDMED, but no direct analyses in the academic literature of the ethical, legal, and policy ramifications of this possible shift in terminology. This paper will analyze our usage of the terms and any recent changes in the dynamic as well as discuss the ethical, legal, and policy implications of this simple terminology for the physician-patient relationship.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Role of Law in End-of-Life Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients, Substitute Decision-Makers and Families Phasing Out Certificate-of-Need Laws: A Menu of Options Prospect Patents, Data Markets and the Commons in Data Driven Medicine. Openness and the Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights Grandma Got Run Over by the Doctor: An Examination of the End of Life Choice Bill with Reference to the German Approach Credit, Default, and Optimal Health Insurance
×
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