This chapter on Health Care Communication Ethics while good in theory does not give any practical knowledge (much like the rest of the book). However in this case I find that the theory is especially not very useful. For most of the book the theories and concepts have made sense. But the care section of this theory is almost incomprehensible. For example, "What drives the communication ethics of health care is the word 'care.' Health care communication ethics seeks to protect and promote care-care is the communicative action or practice that links to the good of responsiveness to the Other" (p. 199). I have read this sentence a few times, yet I still do not know with certainty what they are trying to communicate. In their theory, care is the driving force behind responsiveness, but responsiveness is care.
The chapter states, "Responsiveness is the responsibility for doing the task of health care communication ethics" (p. 196). Therefore responsiveness is responsibility for doing a task and care is the driving force that links the two, where is the action of Health Care Ethics? Every other chapter the basic for the theory is a communicative action, in this theory it seems to be simply the linking of communicative actions. This theory seems to simply pass the buck so to speak from one action or category to another in order to have a sort of ethic. Because of this I think that the theory is just a sort of branch off of our existing theories and has no true basis or core concept since it relies on other theories in order to exist and function.
I agree that the description of care was a little confusing, and I think that was common because reading through the various blog posts people seem to have interpreted it in different ways. But I happen to think this is kind of a good thing. I don't know that I necessarily think the book is saying that caring is the driving force behind responsiveness, but I definitely think they are linked. I think that caring is a type of responsiveness. I think the act of caring is a demonstration of that responsiveness and recognition of how to promote that good of health, comfort, calmness, or whatever the patient (or even health care professional) needs at that moment. I would almost argue that responsiveness drives care because I think the act of care and recognition of it as being caring shows a sense of responsiveness and understanding of what is needed to facilitate effective communication. Some other students in their posts wrote that they understood care as the motive or emotion within an act and some wrote it as being the actual responsive act, so I think you are write that the definition may not be the clearest, but I also think the various interpretations are interesting and all right in their own way. That may not help clear things up for you, but that is what I was thinking about when taking in the section on care.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of responsiveness, I think there is a huge connection to health care ethics communication. I know the book describes it as a responsibility for a task, but also keep in mind it is a form of communication. However one party (patient or professional) decides to respond to news or information is communicating a tone or setting guidelines for that interaction. I think the book is saying that the responsibility comes into play in understanding how to respond or interpret the response of the other in a way that keeps the conversation within those guidelines and expectations and therefor ethical. I think an example of this would be a patient needing to be contorted or calmed, and that is a response that should trigger a response to the professional what their needs and expectations are. By meeting those needs and understanding how to have effective communication, the parties are following the ethical guidelines they have set forth. This could also come into play in terms of the relationship with one's doctor. A woman may express they are more comfortable talking about certain issues with a female doctor, and therefor there are going to be different ideas about what is ethical behavior based on whether the doctor is a man or woman. A man may have to respond differently to maintain a comfort level or standard of what is ethical in a situation, and I think that is where the responsibility comes in. It is the responsibility to be ethical and effective within that health care communication. I think that may be some of what the book is getting at in terms of responsiveness, responsibility, and ethics.