Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Modesty) Volume 117

 

A primary care physician writing an article in 2010 on the
"Health Care Blog" wrote the following and much more. Read it and read the interesting back and forth discussion by the responders to the article.

Here is one paragraph from the writing. JR and others: will this view be acceptable to you coming from a physician?


I am not sure why people bristle at calling patients consumers; that’s what they are. They are also customers, participants, autonomous, and humans in need. This is not an “or” proposition. If we forget the humanity of patients and just treat them as customers, they lose. But they also lose if we forget that they are paying us and demand our respect and our attention to their needs. We are as much servants as we are professionals. Signing up to be a doctor means you agree to give yourself to your patients. All of them. It’s hard, and it’s complicated. It’s a human-human relationship.

..Maurice.

Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Modesty) Volume 116

Let's get started on Volume 116 with this video from YouTube.  

It's about 4 minutes or so in length but clearly shows a potentially upsetting relationship between a patient and his physician and physician's office.  On completion of the story,  consider whose dignity has been preserved and which has been degraded.  If degraded, then tell us: by whom?  ..Maurice.  P.S.- You can click again when the first video is completed to see more patient-doctor  relationship issues as presented on YouTube.

TIME TO MOVE ON  TO VOLUME 117 https://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2021/02/preserving-patient-dignity-formerly.html.
I HAVE COPIED MY LAST POSTING REGARDING "HEALTH CARE BLOG" ARTICLE TO START THE NEW VOLUME AND WE CAN CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION THERE. ..Maurice.

Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Modesty) Volume 115

 Oops! I just noticed that the title of Volume 114 was wrong  (missed "Formally Patient Modesty) and didn't follow the recent Volumes correct sequence titles.  I hope that error didn't prevent visitors to join our conversations. With this Volume, we are back to our correct title which continues the specific "modesty" issue which started this discussion from 2005. Obviously patient modesty and its apparent ignorance by some members of the medical profession, Bantering's suggestion to enlarge the scope and thus title to "Dignity" was certainly important when discussing how the medical system interacts with their patients.

I would like to continue a discussion I began on Volume 114 and to which JF responded: This was followed by another issue I presented related to citizen's freedom in self-decision making. ..Maurice.

NO FURTHER COMMENTS WILL BE PUBLISHED ON VOLUME 115. CONTINUE TO VOLUME 116 https://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2021/01/preserving-patient-dignity-formerly.html

I want to present here a general issue which stimulated me which I read on a clinical ethics listserv. It led me to consider the issue about whether employers had or should have a public health responsibility to require their employees, particularly those who interact with patients or closely with the public to accept being vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine or, if one their refusal being removed from their occupation. Is the employer responsible for the health of their employees and to the public who are exposed to those employees? ..Maurice.

JF said...

I'll let you know if I'm required to get vaccinated. I've been wondering the same thing.

Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Another legal-ethical question which was raised by the clinical-ethics lisserv to which I subscribe: Should all patients entering the hospital who have not been recently previously tested for COVID be legally compelled to be tested? Would that be Constitutional under that specific circumstance? In general, should COVID testing be not personally voluntary but be considered a legal requirement, symptomatic or not? ..Maurice.

 

Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Dignity) Volume 114

 I find that Volume 113 will accept NO further posting.  Please continue here on Volume 114.. Please do not write further messages to 113, I cannot get them published.  ..Maurice.

AS OF TODAY DECEMBER 10 2020, NO FURTHER COMMENTS WILL BE PUBLISHED

ON VOLUME 114 BUT WILL CONTINUE ON VOLUME 115.

Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Modesty) Volume 113

This is the misunderstanding that I agree, at times, is an unfortunate consequence of treatment of patients by all phases of the medical profession.  This sick patient may need to be "fluffed" as part of effective treatment for the underlying disease but, unlike the bed pillow, the profession should always keetp in mind that such "fluffing" may be unwanted and unacceptable by the p1 11amatient and that unlike a pillow, an object, it is as a person, a human subject, the patient, who should be first informed and consulted for permission.
And, if the professional fails in this regard, well.. the patient or the family should "speak up"!  (p.s.- I  hope this analogy meets our blog thread discussions, but feel free to correct me. ) ..Maurice.

Graphic: From Google Images2

AS OF SATURDAY NOVEMBER 14 2020, NO FURTHER COMMENTS CAN BE

PUBLISHED HERE.. MOVE ON TO VOLUME 114.

https://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2020/11/preserving-patient-dignity-formerly.html

  ..Maurice.

Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Modesty) Volume 112

The ongoing anguish being presented by the participants on this web blog topic is whether being a patient who doesn't conform ("be yourself") with the behavior and requests or even demands of the medical system itself  will provide harm to the patient. This patient concern may be the basis for many patients to hesitate to "speak up!".

It is my opinion that patients entering into the medical system should indeed "be themselves" and the challenge for the medical profession should always be beyond making a clinical diagnosis and performing a treatment to understand their patient as a individual, a unique individual to which the diagnosis and treatment and overall attention should be crafted for that patients personality and goals as well as the clinical diagnosis.

Unfortunately, in many relationships between the patient and members of the medical system it is the clinical diagnosis and treatment which overrides consideration of the patient as a unique individual who presents as "himself" or "herself". This defect in the system as expressed to the patient leads to  forcing the patient into personal non-conformity toward themselves in order to get diagnosed and treated and does limit the option or, if attempted, the volume of "speaking up" to the system.  

Remember, patient dignity involves the patient as a unique human and not just a named disease or when hospitalized a room number. So.. "BE YOURSELF".  ..Maurice.

Graphic: Provided by a reader of this blog thread.

Starting September 12 2020, Volume 112 will be CLOSED FOR  COMMENTS.
HOWEVER COMMENTS WILL CONTINUE ON Volume 113.