This is the second part of the series that I will be writing.
As I mentioned before, I am reading a book by this title. Anyways, rather than rambling on like I usually do, I thought that it would be interesting and beneficial for me and many others that may be reading this post to allow for some interaction and opinions on a few of the sections of my reading today that I thought were provocative. Here goes!
"Francis Peabody...has had an immense positive influence on medical education and the quality of medical care in this country. His lecture, "The Care of the Patient" appeared in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1927. Almost at the start, he said, "The most common criticism made at present by older practitioner is that young graduates have been taught a great deal about the mechanism of disease, but very little about the practice of medicine-or, to put it more bluntly, they are too scientific." In disagreeing, Peabody then went on to say, "[The practice of medicine] is an art, based to an increasing extent on the medical sciences, but comprising much that still remains outside the realm of any science. The art of medicine and the science of medicine are not antagonistic but supplementary to each other." He then provided an eloquent description of the blending of medical science with the sympathetic understanding of the life of the patients, whether the disease be organic or functional. He emphasized that getting to know the patient should be regarded as a major portion of the art of medicine. He explained how the patient should be regarded as a major portion of the art of medicine. He explained how the information thus obtained about the patient's symptoms, pattern of living, family life, and so forth should be integrated with the physical aspects, including test results and special examinations, the total comprising the scientific evaluation of the patient's problems (107)."
What are your thoughts on this issue? Is there a place for empathy in medicine, or is it considered too personal? Should a physician become friendly with their patients? Should they get to know their patients, or is there a certain boundary that would be crossed if a physician did so? Is the art of medicine and the science of medicine antagonistic? If so, how?
"Excellent physicians are those who spend time with the patient and thereby gain an understanding of both the clinical problems and the patient's life situation. They must be sensitive, appreciating nuances that creep into the patient's conversation, and sympathetic without always allowing the patient to know it. The patient regards the physician as an authority and wants the opinions and decisions of a scholarly, experienced expert. Physicians who deliberately cultivate empathy, who place themselves in the patient's position, will not be able to reliably fulfill all of these requirements. For example, physicians who are empathic may be so emotionally involved with their patients (Spiro speaks of passion as a desired result of empathy) that their body language and verbal hesitancy may contradict what they are saying. More important, by placing themselves in their patients' position, they may be unable to make the best decision. In short, encouraging physicians to cultivate empathy in their relationships with patients will undermine their ability to function as wise, understanding doctors who give themselves in guiding patients through life's concerns and illnesses (108)."
What are some of your thoughts on this topic? Have you had any experience of the "excellent physician" you would like to share? Can the physician still be empathic with the patient without diminishing the quality of care provided? Are there any other traits you would add that come together to form the "excellent physician"?
And the final quote.
"There are obvious situations in which empathy is almost inevitable. If physicians have experienced the same disease or symptoms as a patient, placing themselves in that patient's position may become almost automatic. Having experienced the disorder will almost certainly assist in making the diagnosis and appreciating the patient's pain and discomfort. Whenever the physician is empathic, however, wisdom dictates that every effort should be made to minimize the emotion when making decisions and speaking to the patient...Effective physicians give patients sufficient time to react and ask questions and learn that they have a sense of humor. They will be sensitive, sympathetic, imperturbable, understanding and occasionally empathic, but by far the least employed of these traits will be empathy (p. 108-9)."
For those who are physicians, have you had a time where a previous diagnosis as a patient has helped you to better empathize with a patient you have had? Does emotion play any role in communicating with patients? Do you agree that empathy is the least practiced trait among medicine? Why or why not?
I know that this can seem like another college message board that is posted online, but I genuinely would like to know what others think on this topic. I would like some input on this, as input would probably help shape me as a future nurse and possible physician. Thank you bunches, and I'll hear from you later!
Now off to get lost in the tunnels under National Jewish!
LiL A
No comments:
Post a Comment