Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Changes in medicine from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries
The evolution of the doctor-patient relationship
Thesis of 18th and 19th century medicine
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The doctor-patient relationship is a key feature of the practice and provision of quality healthcare. The relationship reflects the ---- of modern medical principles and is central when it comes to consensual practice. The present-day, expected relationship involves a sense of equality between the doctor and the patient; including a sense of autonomy for the patient. However this was not always the case. Armstrong describes the patient as “an identity created by doctors”, showing how the relationship was once seen and introduces the idea of non-consensual practice. Previously, physicians had shared the paternalistic view that ‘doctor knows best’. However, as times have progressed, this opinion has changed to that of the patients having a choice in their healthcare. This essay will examine different periods of history where non-consensual practice took place and how, through many different developments, it is now viewed as the unprofessional practice seen today.
During the 18th and 19th century the face of medicine changed dramatically. There was a shift in the medical world from the previously trusted Bedside Medicine through Hospital Medicine to Laboratory Medicine. Bedside Medicine was the original mode of production and, throughout this time, disease was defined as the external signs rather than the internal causes. Because of this, medical investigators looked at the first cause of illness and tried to find one common cure for all of them. During this era of medicine, the poor could not afford to employ bedside practitioners, and so the consumers of medical care were the sick portion of the upper class who paid with private fees. And it was this ill body of people that had all the control over the medical investigators. T...
... middle of paper ...
...ents and the implications this had on their operations. Nowadays it would be completely unacceptable for non-consensual practices. Originally the Nuremberg Code was meant to insure the idea of consensual practice but Pappworth refuted this belief and it was not until the introduction of HSMs, among other factors, that the idea of non-consensual practice was permanently dismissed. One would like to believe that, in present times, we could rely on trust to stop non-consensual operations; but realistically it is this empowering of patients, coupled with the decline in medical control, which explains why non-consensual practice is no longer permitted. The patient is more influential than in the past, and the walls between doctors and patients thinner, meaning Armstrong’s description of the patient as “an identity created by doctors” no longer seems that applicable.
The concepts discussed within the article regarding medicalization and changes within the field of medicine served to be new knowledge for me as the article addressed multiple different aspects regarding the growth of medicalization from a sociological standpoint. Furthermore, the article “The Shifting Engines of Medicalization” discussed the significant changes regarding medicalization that have evolved and are evidently practiced within the contemporary society today. For instance, changes have occurred within health policies, corporatized medicine, clinical freedom, authority and sovereignty exercised by physicians has reduced as other factors began to grow that gained importance within medical care (Conrad 4). Moreover, the article emphasized
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
Even in the medical field, male doctors were dominate to the hundreds of well educated midwives. “Male physicians are easily identified in town records and even in Martha’s diary, by the title “Doctor.” No local woman can be discovered that way” (Ulrich, 1990, pg.61). Martha was a part of this demoralized group of laborers. Unfortunately for her, “in twentieth-century terms, the ability to prescribe and dispense medicine made Martha a physician, while practical knowledge of gargles, bandages, poultices and clisters, as well as willingness to give extended care, defined her as a nurse” (Ulrich, 1990, pg.58). In her diary she even portrays doctors, not midwives, as inconsequential in a few medical
Patient autonomy was the predominant concern during the time of publication of both Ezekiel and Linda Emanuel, and Edmund D. Pellegrino and David C. Thomasma's texts. During that time, the paternalistic model, in which a doctor uses their skills to understand the disease and choose a best course of action for the patient to take, had been replaced by the informative model, one which centered around patient autonomy. The latter model featured a relationship where the control over medical decisions was solely given to the patient and the doctor was reduced to a technical expert. Pellegrino and Thomasma and the Emanuel’s found that the shift from one extreme, the paternalistic model, to the other, the informative model, did not adequately move towards an ideal model. The problem with the informative model, according to the Emanuel’s, is that the autonomy described is simple, which means the model “presupposes that p...
Even since ancient times, it was recognized that doctors had power over their patients, and that there must be ethical implications coming with this responsibility. This was first represented in the Hippocratic Oath, which was created by an Ancient Gree...
In Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Values, Peter Singer examines ethical dilemmas that confront us in the twentieth century by identifying inconsistencies between the theory and practice of ethics in medicine. With advancements in medical technology, we focus on the quality of patients’ lives. Singer believes that in this process, we have acknowledged a new set of values that conflicts with the doctrine of the sanctity of life.
Doctors are well respected within the realm of American society and are perceived with the highest regard as a profession. According to Gallup’s Honesty and Ethics in Profession polls, 67% of respondents believe that “the honesty and ethical standards” of medical doctors were “very high.” Furthermore, 88% of respondents polled by Harris Polls considered doctors to either “hold some” or a “great deal of prestige”. Consequently, these overwhelmingly positive views of the medical profession insinuate a myth of infallibility that envelops the physicians and the science they practice. Atul Gawande, in Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science, provides an extensive view of the medical profession from both sides of the operating table
Within public health, the issue of paternalism has become a controversial topic. Questions about the ethics of public health are being asked. The role of ethics in medical practice is now receiving close scrutiny, so it is timely that ethical concepts, such as autonomy and paternalism, be re-examined in their applied context (Med J Aust. 1994). Clinically, patients are treated on a one on one basis, but public health’s obligation is toward the protection and promotion of an entire population’s health. So, based on this difference, the gaping questions targeting public health now becomes, under what conditions is it right to intervene and override an individuals’ autonomy? And if so, is the paternalistic intervention justified? Part of the concern
In the Renaissance, some aspects of medicine and doctors were still in a Dark Age. Outbreaks of disease were common, doctors were poor, medicine was primitive and many times doctors would kill a patient with a severe treatment for a minor disease! But, there were other sections where medicine and the use of medications improved greatly. This paper is written to illustrate the "light and dark" sides of medicine in the Renaissance.
In the 18th century, the medical field was made up of mostly men. There were three jobs in this field: Physicians, Surgeons, and Apothecaries. Physicians were the most elite of the three. Physicians in the 18th century had no knowledge of anything. Nobody knew that disease was spread by bacteria, germs, and viruses. Because they didn’t know this, nobody practiced sterilization or hygiene, hospital and personal.
Consent has been a fundamental part of nursing practice dating back as far as Hippocrates in ancient Greece. The Hippocratic Oath is an ancient form of guideline, devised for those who chose to enter the medical profession. Here these guidelines show physician-patient conversation were key components in healthcare, along with ensuring patients were kept informed on issues related to their health and the importance of gaining consent during the delivery of care (Miles, 2009).
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
The purpose f this paper is to answer the following question- where does patient autonomy leave off and professional expertise begin in the practice of medicine? Also, a brief personal analysis about the differences between doctors encouraging patients to question their judgment and doctors who believe that such deference is “pandering.”
In this diverse society we are confronted everyday with so many ethical choices in provision of healthcare for individuals. It becomes very difficult to find a guideline that would include a border perspective which might include individual’s beliefs and preference across the world. Due to these controversies, the four principles in biomedical ethic which includes autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice help us understand and explain which medical practices are ethical and acceptable. These principles are not only used to protect the rights of a patient but also the physician from being violated.
...e gap in attitudes between pre-medicalized and modern time periods. The trends of technological advancement and human understanding project a completely medicalized future in which medical authorities cement their place above an intently obedient society.