Polarities in Clinical Thinking and Practice

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This analysis of a case of a bereaved patient that poses two treatment options-watchful waiting or medication-focuses on five "polarities" in clinical practice: (1) the normal and the pathological, (2) the individual and the diagnostic collective, (3) the primary care physician and the consultant, (4) the expert and nonexpert, and (5) the moment and the process. These polarities can accentuate ethical problems posed by this case, for example, by creating stark contrasts that mask the complex contexts of care and characteristics of patients. These stark contrasts can create false dilemmas that may obscure simpler, shared decision-making solutions. Alternatives to conceiving cases in terms of polarities are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)141-146
Number of pages6
JournalAMA journal of ethics
Volume19
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Fingerprint

Watchful Waiting
Primary Care Physicians
Masks
Consultants
Decision Making
Patient Care
Therapeutics
Thinking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Polarities in Clinical Thinking and Practice. / Sadler, John Z.

In: AMA journal of ethics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 01.02.2017, p. 141-146.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bb3f66e9cef34dafae3daa8f267c1f79,
title = "Polarities in Clinical Thinking and Practice",
abstract = "This analysis of a case of a bereaved patient that poses two treatment options-watchful waiting or medication-focuses on five {"}polarities{"} in clinical practice: (1) the normal and the pathological, (2) the individual and the diagnostic collective, (3) the primary care physician and the consultant, (4) the expert and nonexpert, and (5) the moment and the process. These polarities can accentuate ethical problems posed by this case, for example, by creating stark contrasts that mask the complex contexts of care and characteristics of patients. These stark contrasts can create false dilemmas that may obscure simpler, shared decision-making solutions. Alternatives to conceiving cases in terms of polarities are discussed.",
author = "Sadler, {John Z.}",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.ecas1-1702",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "141--146",
journal = "AMA journal of ethics",
issn = "2376-6980",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Polarities in Clinical Thinking and Practice

AU - Sadler, John Z.

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - This analysis of a case of a bereaved patient that poses two treatment options-watchful waiting or medication-focuses on five "polarities" in clinical practice: (1) the normal and the pathological, (2) the individual and the diagnostic collective, (3) the primary care physician and the consultant, (4) the expert and nonexpert, and (5) the moment and the process. These polarities can accentuate ethical problems posed by this case, for example, by creating stark contrasts that mask the complex contexts of care and characteristics of patients. These stark contrasts can create false dilemmas that may obscure simpler, shared decision-making solutions. Alternatives to conceiving cases in terms of polarities are discussed.

AB - This analysis of a case of a bereaved patient that poses two treatment options-watchful waiting or medication-focuses on five "polarities" in clinical practice: (1) the normal and the pathological, (2) the individual and the diagnostic collective, (3) the primary care physician and the consultant, (4) the expert and nonexpert, and (5) the moment and the process. These polarities can accentuate ethical problems posed by this case, for example, by creating stark contrasts that mask the complex contexts of care and characteristics of patients. These stark contrasts can create false dilemmas that may obscure simpler, shared decision-making solutions. Alternatives to conceiving cases in terms of polarities are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015580802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015580802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.ecas1-1702

DO - 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.ecas1-1702

M3 - Article

C2 - 28225694

AN - SCOPUS:85015580802

VL - 19

SP - 141

EP - 146

JO - AMA journal of ethics

JF - AMA journal of ethics

SN - 2376-6980

IS - 2

ER -