In the introduction section I found it very interesting and profound that the authors differentiate between hope and optimism (192). I thought it was very fitting when discussing Health care communication ethics it just really took me off guard because you associate those terms with other various things beside just health. This chapter was very engaging for me to read because I think health care communication ethics is something that is greatly looked over and people don't recognize the skill and tact it takes to be in a field like health care and have to communicate effectively with patients, their families, other professionals, etc. in a manner where everything is very situational.
The way the chapter went into detail regarding responsiveness was not what I had expected from what the beginning of the chapter had led me to believe. I took responsiveness as the health care provider responding to a patient but as I read on the it was meant to be focused on our response as individuals to our own health and how these constant responses to the things life throws at us shape our individual living "as we prepare for our end" (195). I thought it was a somewhat morbid approach but when the authors use the example of the diabetic who uses medicine as an excuse to eat whatever they'd like and not exercise instead of taking all of the necessary precautions it really hit the point home, it was the perfect example to illustrate this point (196).
The concept of care was the section I had most anticipated while reading this chapter just because I was curious if the text would discuss. In my intercultural communications class we talked a little bit about the concept of health care communication ethics across cultures and how differing cultures and their customs related to things like birth and death present a challenge for those health care officials and personnel in order to be respectful others cultures and traditions. I was disappointed that the chapter didn't briefly touch on this point considering that our society has become so much more culturally diverse but I did find a sentence in the text that no matter the culture explains care as a universal term and that is that "care becomes the protections, the promotion, and the facilitation of human responsiveness as the defining characteristic of the good of health care communication ethics" (199). This sentence put into perspective that no matter the culture we all, as human beings, have the same expectations and needs when it comes to taking care of our health and being responsive, whether we respond appropriately and proactively or not.
I also found the section on care interesting, particularly in regards to the fact that care was deemed a universal term. At the beginning of this semester I remember our class had a discussion on whether or not we thought there were universal goods, and I don't remember being able to come up with one as a group. Even the book told us that it was only common sense to recognize that common sense doesn't really exist in postmodern times. So does this contradict what we've been taught up to now? I understand that there are different ways to carry out the process of care, but the book did make it pretty clear that they believed care to be a universal trait of humanity, and a failure to adhere to this principle would leave someone being labeled inhuman. I've always thought that there are in fact inherent universal goods, and I feel like I'm in the minority on this stance, but for a moment the text might be supporting me.
ReplyDelete