Chapter 11 Health Care Communication Ethics

I'll be honest by saying that I was somewhat disappointed with this chapter. I thought there were going to be more specific examples in regards to health care communication ethics, but it was back to theories, and vague ones at that. Now, I'm not saying that they were bad theories, but I was hoping they would have gotten a little more specific. Luckily my hope "possesses a gritty sense of work and conviction situated within a realization that not all hopes actualize themselves" (192). So I'll just have to respond to my disappointment by renewing my hope going into class because I'm certain that we're going to have pretty good discussion on this topic. The same principle goes for health care communication ethics in that the "key for the health care provider, the patient, and the family is responsiveness" (195). More specifically, "one looks for ways to respond to the illness in the larger context of a life, not just for answers to 'fix' ill health" (195). And I completely agree with this point, but the book just seemed to leave it at that. I feel like there should be so much more in this chapter like how doctors or clinicians give the patient a "why" to bear the "how." How does one ethically provide hope? Is it simply a patient by patient answer?

Another point that I found interesting was in regards to labor of care. It said that "care is a necessity of the human condition" (200), and because of that acts of not caring are deemed inhumane. Again, I agree with what the book is saying, and maybe I'm going to get a little picky here, but I feel like the text is contradicting itself. By saying that humans in general must respond to this necessity, is the book not also saying that this is a universal good or a moral absolute? How else could we claim that something is inhumane, or what would give us the power to even say so? I would love to hear thoughts on this!