Ethics & Empathy in Medicine: Cold Logic or Warm Heart?

  • Thread starter greghouse
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ethics
In summary, the conversation discusses the need for ethics and empathy in the field of medicine. The speaker believes that empathy is not necessary and that difficult ethical decisions should be made with cold logic. Others argue that empathy or sympathy is important for effective patient care. The conversation also touches on the idea that empathy is not just about being in someone's shoes, but also about simply imagining oneself in their situation. The importance of caring for patients as individuals is also emphasized. Overall, the conversation highlights the complex balance between logic and emotion in the medical field.
  • #1
greghouse
38
0
This thread is regarding the need for ethics and empathy within the field of medicine. I would of course appreciate if some actual MDs would reply to this since they have the practical experience of medicine whereas my opinions are merely based on cold logic. Others are of course welcome to critize me aswell, as long as they take the thread seriously and don't label me as some "mad-scientis mengele-type mad-man" :wink:

My opinion is that empathy is not needed within medicine, on the contrary, "difficult ethical dilemmas" is best solved with cold logic, a way of thinking that is inhibited gravely by empathy. Empathy reduces your chances of making the best possible decision in every situation, whereas the positive results of empathy, (telling someone "the right things", making them feel better etc. ) can be learned, trained in etc. This argument is strongly supported by the facts that some high-functional autist (Aspergers syndrom) have learned what to say in certain situations, and it is even suggested by some statements that certain MDs have said. The types of statements I think about is for instance "...I find these decisions the tuffest to make. Afterwards I have to rationalize it for myself, and my collegues. Its the worst part of the job." The MD knows what has to be done, but has difficulties doing it.

Right and wrong are just words and their definition differs between cultures. The only relevant thing is what's necessary.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Do you really mean empathy, or sympathy? Empathy comes from having been in a similar situation and sharing feelings regarding that. This would be next to impossible for physicians to have unless they've spent a lot of time being a patient for a lot of reasons. For example, one cannot express empathy for someone who they are about to inform about a diagnosis of a terminal illness if they have never gone through that experience themselves. And, reacting based on your own feelings would certainly not help you give your patient the best care based on their feelings.

If, instead, you mean sympathy, then yes, it's needed. Physicians cannot be robots, they need to respond to their patients' needs, give them reassurances they need, notice if they are afraid and deal with it. Otherwise, you cannot effectively treat your patient if you don't pick up on their emotional state...stress can adversely affect outcome. Fear or distrust of the doctor can lead to non-compliance with treatments, or even an unwillingness to return for a follow-up visit.
 
  • #3
Moonbear said:
Empathy comes from having been in a similar situation and sharing feelings regarding that. This would be next to impossible for physicians to have unless they've spent a lot of time being a patient for a lot of reasons.

No it doesn't. You don't have to have been in someones position to show empathy for them. Proof for this you have in the autists, whom never themselves have been tortured, and appear completely unaffected by watching someone being tortured, whereas other "normal" empathic people (whom haven't benn tortured) get affected by it. Autist are known to have "problems" with empathy, i.e. don't have that function.

As goes for sympathy, of course it is needed. Basically that was what I wrote, albeit I might have done it between the lines :rofl:
 
  • #4
I too think empathy is the wrong word, though it doesn't mean literally being in someone's shoes, but just imagining yourself in their shoes. Regardless, if you haven't been in someone's shoes, it is tough to empathize with them. And even if you could place yourself in their shoes, a physician should not. It could lead to poor decision making to too closely identify with the fear and pain of the patients.

Sympathy, on the other hand, is essential for dealing with scared patients effectively. That makes being a doctor a tough balance. Parts of the job require cold, hard logic, while other parts require emotional connection with the patients.
 
  • #5
russ_watters said:
Parts of the job require cold, hard logic, while other parts require emotional connection with the patients.

Can you give me an example of the emotional connection part? As far as logic goes, you shouldn't care what your doctor thinks about you, or whether he cares if you live or die anymore than that it's his job to make you not to. In my opinion, the ideal doctor doesn't care whether someone dies as long as a medical mistake has not been made.

Once again, sympathy might help the patient in its recovery due to optimistical approaches, therefor it is necessary.
 
  • #6
greghouse said:
Can you give me an example of the emotional connection part? As far as logic goes, you shouldn't care what your doctor thinks about you, or whether he cares if you live or die anymore than that it's his job to make you not to. In my opinion, the ideal doctor doesn't care whether someone dies as long as a medical mistake has not been made.

I already gave an example. Yes, patients DO care if their doctor cares about them. Would YOU want to go to a doctor who doesn't care if you live or die? And you seem to be creating a new definition of empathy. Empathy is emotionally putting oneself in another person's shoes. That's separate from caring if one lives or dies, which is sympathy, or just generally caring. Doctors are dealing with human patients with the full range of human emotions and expectations.

We teach our med students here the acronym KMART: Keep My Attitude Right Today. This is a key part of patient care.
 
  • #7
Moonbear said:
I already gave an example. Yes, patients DO care if their doctor cares about them. Would YOU want to go to a doctor who doesn't care if you live or die?

So fake it. As far as I go, I only want my physician to care about giving me the right diagnosis and treatment.

If you care about someone, you are not emotionally detached. Therefore you do not operate with the objectivity needed for the purely medical stuff. I bet most doctors wouldn't like to operate on their own mothers. Why? They loose their objectivity. Many situations requires from the doctor only to make decisions which gives, purely probably speaking, the patient the biggest chance statistically to... let's say survive.

Why should you form an emotional connection with someone if you can get by simply by saying the right words and SYMPATHIZE? Hollow words, said with the rigth tone, are just as meaning-full as "true words" in the ear of the patient.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
greghouse said:
"difficult ethical dilemmas" is best solved with cold logic

Can you give an example?

I think you at least need some "first principles" and these have to be based on something. If not "empathy", then presumably some kind of utilitarianism: "the greatest health for the greatest number of citizens".

Is this what you have in mind?
 
  • #9
Example of "difficult ethical dilemma": We have a patient with... let's say three genetic, fatal and incurable diseases. The patient also suffers in agony. Suddenly someone comes with the idea of changing medicine so as to extend the patients life say... a few hours, maybe a day. What would you do?

An other example is the isolation of a smaller group of people infected with a yet unknown deadly disease. Is it "ethically right" to isolate them to protect the others? By isolate I also mean revoke their human rights, and similar. The cold logic says that the larger groups health is more important than the smaller group.

What more specifically do you mean by "first principles"? I guess "the greatest health for the greatest number of citizens" would not be far off, but that's not the point here. The point is wether empaty is needed at all, or even should be allowed to exist within medicine.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Lord Ping said:
Can you give an example?

I think you at least need some "first principles" and these have to be based on something. If not "empathy", then presumably some kind of utilitarianism: "the greatest health for the greatest number of citizens".

Is this what you have in mind?

I don't know if it's the right example, but I'm observing one right one now. So here is that 84 year old man with a artifical heart valve, showing some discrepancies during a routine checkout. he had no idea that something was wrong and to his idea could live on for a long time.

But the valve might/will fail eventually Must be it be dealt with? If not, he may soon have major problems, but how soon?

So the surgery was complex (a whole day) and the recovery is not going that well, several complications emerged. What can you expect at that age?

I can imagine that the decision for surgery or not in cases like this, are tough and may be complicated by empathy/sympathy issues.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
greghouse said:
Can you give me an example of the emotional connection part? As far as logic goes, you shouldn't care what your doctor thinks about you, or whether he cares if you live or die anymore than that it's his job to make you not to. In my opinion, the ideal doctor doesn't care whether someone dies as long as a medical mistake has not been made...

[separate post]

So fake it. As far as I go, I only want my physician to care about giving me the right diagnosis and treatment.
You are being unrealistic. Sick people get scared, but they are still the primary decision-maker in their treatment and therefore need someone to help them deal with the emotions that may affect the decision.
 
  • #12
russ_watters said:
Sick people get scared, but they are still the primary decision-maker in their treatment and therefore need someone to help them deal with the emotions that may affect the decision.

Youre absolutely right. In fact, let's just strip them of their choice all together. The notion that they're going to fully understand what the doctor just told them, (information which he has years of theoretical, and practical training to back up) is completely ridicoulus.

That's as far as my general opinion is, but could you give me a more concrete example of a situation where the patient is given alternate treatment-options?
 
  • #13
Is it really so difficult to be a little empathetic? Most patients don't want a whole lot of sympathy. But a little understanding goes a long way.

Is your judgement drastically jeopardised by concern for a patient? It would seem you are far to close.

A person should find it difficult to perform a procedure on their mother, though it would get easier over time. Imagine helping your mother learn to change her colostomy bag.

If you think it is hard to remove your emotion from a problem then you will find it very difficult working in medicine.

At times you must be calculating and if that is perceived as being cold so be it.

But if your only concern is with the mechanics of something, stick to mechanics.

As for alternate treatment options the first thing you should do, assuming one has been given, is to seek another (due to misdiagnosis if nothing else).

If you find yourself isolating or secluding another there is no need not to empathise, your feelings should not change the job but may well affect the patients experience.

And at the end of the day, even saving lives will become boring, a little empathy makes a repetitive task relevant. So have some for your own sake.
 
  • #14
I've seen the term empathy used in this fashion many times. Sort of broadly defining it as the ability to perceive another human being as like yourself and in need of the same emotional considerations as yourself. Generally I've seen it used when describing the lack of "empathy" in nuerologically or psychologically handicapped people.

As for the actual topic it seems that greghouse is a fan of the television show House MD with a character of the same name and that is likely a major part of the inspiration for this thread. House is a doctor who has no bedside manner and who is famously quoted "We don't treat people, we treat diseases." Of course he treats special cases and rare diseases where he needs a diagnosis and treatment asap before the patient dies rendering the whole getting-to-know-you and sympathy phase of the relationship rather superfluous. And he is generally rather successful at treatment.
But the show does illustrate the problems with his detachement. Often patients don't trust him and are difficult to persuade to take his treatments.
You can't treat a patient against their will. That is not ethical. Even the character in the show would not do it. And it's always best for a patient to be comfortable with all facets of their environment, including their relationship with their doctor. I'm sure there are plenty of medical issues and treatments that can go awry due to unneccessary stress on the patient.
 
  • #15
greghouse said:
Youre absolutely right. In fact, let's just strip them of their choice all together. The notion that they're going to fully understand what the doctor just told them, (information which he has years of theoretical, and practical training to back up) is completely ridicoulus.
That's impossible except in the case of emergency care. This is the United States.
That's as far as my general opinion is, but could you give me a more concrete example of a situation where the patient is given alternate treatment-options?
Sure. I got my wisdom teeth removed. My treatment options were:

-Get my wisdom teeth removed.
-Don't get my wisdom teeth removed.
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
I got my wisdom teeth removed. My treatment options were:

-Get my wisdom teeth removed.
-Don't get my wisdom teeth removed.

Just as "take the medicine or die" is an option.

And besides, I bet your choice was really eased by your doctors great load of empathy...
 
Last edited:
  • #17
There's no need to be like that, greg. The choice I made to get my wisdom teeth removed was my choice. It wasn't an essential procedure. I wasn't in pain (ehh, slight ache every now and then), I got them removed more to avoid future problems (something like a 70% chance of infection). It isn't a clear-cut choice. And it wasn't a dire circumstance and I wasn't emotional about it, so empathy doesn't play much of a role there.

I had (have?) another issue, a bone spur under my Achilles tendon. When I was in 9th grade, it caused a lot of pain due to the amount of running I was doing. The doctor said it could be removed, but there was a risk of damage to the tendon. I kinda wanted to get it removed, but I got cut from the soccer team (mainly due to the injury), didn't run much for a while, and it stopped hurting.

Situations like these happen all the time in medicine and it is essential for doctors to be able to connect with their patients on an emotional level when necessary to help them make these decisions
 
  • #18
TheStatutoryApe said:
I've seen the term empathy used in this fashion many times. Sort of broadly defining it as the ability to perceive another human being as like yourself and in need of the same emotional considerations as yourself. Generally I've seen it used when describing the lack of "empathy" in nuerologically or psychologically handicapped people.

As for the actual topic it seems that greghouse is a fan of the television show House MD with a character of the same name and that is likely a major part of the inspiration for this thread. House is a doctor who has no bedside manner and who is famously quoted "We don't treat people, we treat diseases." Of course he treats special cases and rare diseases where he needs a diagnosis and treatment asap before the patient dies rendering the whole getting-to-know-you and sympathy phase of the relationship rather superfluous. And he is generally rather successful at treatment.
But the show does illustrate the problems with his detachement. Often patients don't trust him and are difficult to persuade to take his treatments.
You can't treat a patient against their will. That is not ethical. Even the character in the show would not do it. And it's always best for a patient to be comfortable with all facets of their environment, including their relationship with their doctor. I'm sure there are plenty of medical issues and treatments that can go awry due to unneccessary stress on the patient.
I was thinking the same thing. Also, the character "House" often has to have one of his more compassionate subordinates be the interface with the patient, House mostly interacts with his staff, not the patient. And it never goes well when House does interact with the patient. So, even imaginary doctors that show no compassion don't do well with patients.
 
  • #19
greghouse said:
That's as far as my general opinion is, but could you give me a more concrete example of a situation where the patient is given alternate treatment-options?

Yes. My grandfather passed away earlier this year of bladder cancer. This was his third recurrence of cancer (the first incidence being about 25 years ago). He also already had a pacemaker installed, was taking insulin since having his pancreas removed from an earlier bout of cancer, and was in his 90s. His choices were have his bladder removed with a high chance of dying from surgical complications at his age and condition, start chemotherapy with a high chance of it killing him at his age and condition, or do nothing with a high chance of dying from the bleeding resulting from the tumor progression. Basically, he was going to die sometime within a few weeks to a year later, regardless of his treatment choices, although there remained a very very slim chance he could live a few more years if he received treatment, although the quality of those years was highly questionable. He had to consider the pressure from my mother, aunt and grandmother who all thought he should keep fighting, as I tried to explain to them that he needed to make the decision for himself and that the best decision might be to do nothing and allow the cancer to take him sooner with dignity than to spend another few years nauseous from chemotherapy and attached to a catheter and bag for urine collection while unable to continue doing any of the activities he had previously enjoyed in life. He chose no treatment and passed away within a month of making that decision. This is a situation where a doctor needs to suspend all of their knowledge of ways to treat a patient and realize that compassionate, palliative care is all that the patient desires and needs.

In contrast, I was speaking with someone earlier today whose wife is a cancer survivor. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and given a 75% likelihood she would not survive past 5 years even with treatment. Based on cold, hard facts, there was no point wasting time treating her..the odds were she was going to die anyway. She and her husband are going out tonight to celebrate her results of being cancer free...10 years after her initial diagnosis. Patients need to be involved in decisions regarding their own care.

And, that caring extends beyond one's patients. It extends to the family of the patients as well. The caring and compassion help the family cope with the death or disability of a loved one. It is not uncommon, at least here in the US, for one's family doctor to attend the funeral of a long time patient. This provides comfort to the family...it also ensures the family continues to receive the care they need. Going to the doctor needn't be a cold, scary experience, and the more comfortable patients are with doctors, the more likely they are to get the treatment they need, remain compliant with treatment, and return for follow-up care.
 
  • #20
Moonbear said:
My grandfather passed away earlier this year of bladder cancer. This was his third recurrence of cancer (the first incidence being about 25 years ago). He also already had a pacemaker installed, was taking insulin since having his pancreas removed from an earlier bout of cancer, and was in his 90s. His choices were have his bladder removed with a high chance of dying from surgical complications at his age and condition, start chemotherapy with a high chance of it killing him at his age and condition, or do nothing with a high chance of dying from the bleeding resulting from the tumor progression. Basically, he was going to die sometime within a few weeks to a year later, regardless of his treatment choices, although there remained a very very slim chance he could live a few more years if he received treatment, although the quality of those years was highly questionable. He had to consider the pressure from my mother, aunt and grandmother who all thought he should keep fighting, as I tried to explain to them that he needed to make the decision for himself and that the best decision might be to do nothing and allow the cancer to take him sooner with dignity than to spend another few years nauseous from chemotherapy and attached to a catheter and bag for urine collection while unable to continue doing any of the activities he had previously enjoyed in life.
That's rough. I had a similar situation last year with my grandfather. He's in his early 90s and got sick - a lung infection, I think. He seemed near death and signed a DNR order that extended to the point of cutting off most medical treatment (I saw it briefly, it said things like no antibiotics, no dialysis, etc.). There was a fight between my ants/uncles and mom about this, and I think my mom was the only one of the 4 who agreed with the order (besides, of course, my grandfather).

The infection cleared, but he didn't get stronger and the medical staff was tough to read on what the prognosis and course of action was -- but it seemed he was still near death. He couldn't feed himself or roll over, etc. After a few weeks of basically being in limbo, my mother convinced him and the other relatives to accept home hospice care instead of just waiting to die in the hospital. Perhaps that's just what he needed, though - he's recovered fully now (at least as much as a 92 year old can).

These are very difficult and emotional decisions. In this case, it didn't seem like the doctors were doing a good job of communicating the issues. A couple of the nurses gave more help than they probably were supposed to. One issue is that my grandparents seem to be overmedicated - my grandfather was delirious sometimes when I went to visit him and I'm still not sure if it was because of the illness or medication. A nurse showed us the medication orders in black and white, and I guess I believe him, but it is tough to be sure. His regular doctor flat-out refuses to talk to my mother - she asks too many questions (mostly about why they are taking sleeping pills...).

[edit] Actually, that reminds me of another relevant situation. My grandfather had an anyeurism of his aorta about 20 years ago. When it was discovered, the doctor in the small, rural hospital outside of Allentown wanted to do the surgery and my grandfather agreed. My mother asked how many he'd done and what his success rate was. IIRC, he was something like 1 for 3. My mother, of course, threw a fit and demanded that they seek a better hospital and more experienced surgeon. She accompany'd him to Dallas where a surgeon who had performed dozens (hundreds?) did the procedure and he eventually recovered fully.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Moonbear said:
Empathy comes from having been in a similar situation and sharing feelings regarding that. This would be next to impossible for physicians to have unless they've spent a lot of time being a patient for a lot of reasons. For example, one cannot express empathy for someone who they are about to inform about a diagnosis of a terminal illness if they have never gone through that experience themselves. And, reacting based on your own feelings would certainly not help you give your patient the best care based on their feelings.

If, instead, you mean sympathy, then yes, it's needed. Physicians cannot be robots, they need to respond to their patients' needs, give them reassurances they need, notice if they are afraid and deal with it. Otherwise, you cannot effectively treat your patient if you don't pick up on their emotional state...stress can adversely affect outcome. Fear or distrust of the doctor can lead to non-compliance with treatments, or even an unwillingness to return for a follow-up visit.

I just wanted to clarify that the act of empathy is not dependent upon having experienced the exact same condition as the subject of one's empathy. One need only put one's self in the place of the subject, using intellectual and sensual approximations to try and "feel" the situation one is showing empathy about.

empathy |ˈempəθē|
noun
the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.ORIGIN early 20th cent.: from Greek empatheia (from em- ‘in’ + pathos ‘feeling’ ) translating German Einfühlung.

(From the published and peer reviewed Oxford Dictionary)

Here we are only told that empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. This doesn't mean the empathy will correctly simulate the condition being observed. It means the condition is as accurately assessed emotionally, intellectually and sensually as possible by the observer.

For instance, a human can have empathy for an animal like a dog who has been hurt in some way by assessing the wounds or behaviour of the animal. This does not require that the human be a dog or have a tail or large teeth.

edit) In fact I would go so far as to say that it is empathy that is one of the main motives to become a doctor, scientist or even an artist. What else drives a person to devote their life to studying a plant or a star system other than empathy and the need to understand how it feels to be the subject of one's enquiry?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
baywax said:
I just wanted to clarify that the act of empathy is not dependent upon having experienced the exact same condition as the subject of one's empathy. One need only put one's self in the place of the subject, using intellectual and sensual approximations to try and "feel" the situation one is showing empathy about.

Thanks, that should clear things up.

As goes for my name, I do like the show, but there is simply not enough realism in it for me to consider Gregory House an actual role-model (even if many of the things he says, are logically irrefutable). I know also that if he existed in reality, he would be incarcenated. I realize now that my nick might even be inapropirate considering my opinions.. (which still are not without logical up-backing), I guess my opinions more resemble those of Ezra Powells.

As for your tragic elderly-family members goes, we are all going to die. Sooner or later, with more or less dignity, with more or less pain. If you want to have some "sun-blue-sky-and-flowers"-ification of shortening lives by not treating the disease but making the patient as comfortable as possible, you should watch Patch Adams.

I can compare the situation with getting the wisdom-teeth removed to the "dying-of-cancer"-situation: either you get treatment or you don't. The patients choice, which shouldn't be affected by the way the doctor presents them. The best patient doesn't care about the doctors opinion of him, since no matter who you are, someone is ALWAYS going to dislike you, may that be simply because you try to make him like you! The same goes for the doctor/patient relation. It is a romantical hypocrizy to assume anything else.

Now I take it moon-bear is a doctor, so here comes a question for you (and every other medical professional here): How many collegues do you have, who intentionally detaches themselves emotionally from the patient to stay objective, and how do they rationalize it?
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Evo said:
So, even imaginary doctors that show no compassion don't do well with patients.

I seriously doubt that you could tell the difference between some doctor who cares about you, and someone who doesn't, since the one who doesn't would fake it. Have you ever seen a doctor not caring about his/ her patient?
 
  • #24
greghouse said:
Have you ever seen a doctor not caring about his/ her patient?
Absolutely - well, not personally. When dealing with my grandfather's issues, my mother had to deal with a doctor who was just a jerk. Just the type of "do what I tell you and I'm not going to explain why" doctor that "House" is. In the real world, that just doesn't fly unless you have some psychological power over the patient like Stockholm or battered-wife syndrome and you can hold them hostage. Any intelligent, semi-rational person would drop a doctor like that immediately.

Proper/successful medical care absolutely requires cooperation between doctor and patient. Something as simple as getting a patient's history is important and requires good interpersonal skills.
I seriously doubt that you could tell the difference between some doctor who cares about you, and someone who doesn't, since the one who doesn't would fake it.
I suppose they teach theater class along-side anatomy in med school? Sures, some may be able to fake it adequately, but many will try and fail and many others (like your namesake) won't try at all.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
greghouse said:
Now I take it moon-bear is a doctor, so here comes a question for you (and every other medical professional here): How many collegues do you have, who intentionally detaches themselves emotionally from the patient to stay objective, and how do they rationalize it?

I've seen the results of detachment and machine-like precision in several doctors. They not only pull the factory line in a clinic but they also maintain the "bottom line" in terms of funding. This is a practice that does not often suit the well-being of a human. In fact, a 60% death rate in a cancer clinic can be attributed to the attitude of detachment and maintaining the flow of cash.

Its when a doctor becomes passionate and compassionate about their work that the number of surviving patients goes up. This is probably because their intention is to facilitate life in an ailing body of patients rather than viewing them as one cog in the wheels of keeping a clinic open.

(edit)PS. The number one leading cause of infection transmission in hospitals is the doctor's tie.

Try to go with the more relaxed dude-type doctors... ie:no tie.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
greghouse said:
I seriously doubt that you could tell the difference between some doctor who cares about you, and someone who doesn't, since the one who doesn't would fake it. Have you ever seen a doctor not caring about his/ her patient?

People who do not care cannot fake it that well. There are always subtle cues that give it away and will lead the patient to distrust you. It goes beyond simple presentation of facts to your patients...they need to understand them and want to believe you know what you're talking about when you explain it to them. Your patients are HUMAN with all that entails, including all the imperfections of humans and emotions. And, empathy for one's patients also includes identifying when they DON'T want to be treated a certain way. If you would prefer to be given cold, hard facts and not have any of it sugar-coated, a doctor has to understand those are your preferences and deliver the information to you in a way you can best process it.

Physicians who really don't care a lot about their patients go into specialties like pathology or radiology where they aren't the ones directly dealing with patients so much as reading lab results and talking to other physicians about them. They can be good physicians in their specialties, but cannot fake the sort of bedside manner they need to deal directly with patients.

On the flip side, one should not become too emotionally attached to a patient either. You wouldn't want your own emotions to hinder your decision making. This is why physicians should not treat their own relatives; they can't separate their own desires from the patient's desires as easily.

And, for the record, no, I'm not a physician. I teach aspiring physicians in medical school, though.
 
  • #27
baywax said:
Its when a doctor becomes passionate and compassionate about their work that the number of surviving patients goes up. This is probably because their intention is to facilitate life in an ailing body of patients rather than viewing them as one cog in the wheels of keeping a clinic open.

Might be true, but then exactly what are they doing that the other "not caring therefor stupid incompetent" doctor doesn't? And with that question I mean litterally do they visit the patient more often? Administer more drugs ( or placeboes) etc. Every type of action has to be broken down to its smallest parts, and then every doctor learns to do this, why he's doing it, and what effects it has if he doesn't do it. Problem solved.

Empathy in it self doesn't heal patients, it's its consequenses that up the odds. And these consequenses can be done without the empathy. QED
 
  • #28
Moonbear said:
People who do not care cannot fake it that well. There are always subtle cues that give it away and will lead the patient to distrust you. It goes beyond simple presentation of facts to your patients...they need to understand them and want to believe you know what you're talking about when you explain it to them.

You can fake it without it being noticed. Many people for instance can't tell wheter someone has Aspergers or not. As you know, Aspergers is a milder form of autism, and the sufferers (blessed ones) don't have the empathy ability at all, or very little. Nevertheless they learn how to act, and though somewhat odd to their behaviour sometimes, it usually goes by unnoticed that they don't empathize.

To find these clues you have not only to look for them, but also know what you're looking for, which most people definately don't.
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
Any intelligent, semi-rational person would drop a doctor like that immediately.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't consist mainly of intelligent, semi-rational people. Especially not the US.
 
  • #30
There are degrees of approaches to patient care: empathy, sympathy, objectivity and cruelty.

I think the character House tends to employ the latter when dealing with a patient’s emotional wellbeing, often resorting to sarcasm and contempt; but he uses objectivity when deciding which treatment would be most beneficial to their physical health.

Emotional wellbeing and physical health are inextricably linked, so it seems logical to appeal positively to both aspects of a patient’s welfare.
 
  • #31
Giles said:
There are degrees of approaches to patient care: empathy, sympathy, objectivity and cruelty.

I think the character House tends to employ the latter when dealing with a patient’s emotional wellbeing, often resorting to sarcasm and contempt; but he uses objectivity when deciding which treatment would be most beneficial to their physical health.

Emotional wellbeing and physical health are inextricably linked, so it seems logical to appeal positively to both aspects of a patient’s welfare.

First, no way you can simply "degree" patient care like that. As pointed out before, empathy and sympathy are completely different. Objectivity is something (which Iv'e been trying to say all along) every doctor should try to achieve at the expence of empathy, which tends to compromise it.

Sure, but House isn't why I debate this, also as i pinpointed before.

Fake it man!
 
  • #32
greghouse said:
Might be true, but then exactly what are they doing that the other "not caring therefor stupid incompetent" doctor doesn't? And with that question I mean litterally do they visit the patient more often? Administer more drugs ( or placeboes) etc. Every type of action has to be broken down to its smallest parts, and then every doctor learns to do this, why he's doing it, and what effects it has if he doesn't do it. Problem solved.

Empathy in it self doesn't heal patients, it's its consequenses that up the odds. And these consequenses can be done without the empathy. QED

Compassion and empathy create the natural curiosity and motivation in a person to find the best solution to a situation. When a person/doctor is well trained in empathic observation the information gained from a patient or situation that goes toward understanding the conditions is of a far better quality and of such a specific nature that healing can take place faster and more effectively.

Don't mistake empathy with emotion. Empathy is the use of ones abilities to understand the basic effects of a situation on a patient's physical and psychological well being. When empathy delves into how the emotions of a patient feel, that is SYMPATHY which is not as constructive or as effective in treating a condition. Sympathy might be seen as a bottleneck in one's care of another because it causes one to pause, lament and feel as overwhelmed as one's subject in the face of what might be poor odds.
 
  • #33
greghouse said:
You can fake it without it being noticed. Many people for instance can't tell wheter someone has Aspergers or not. As you know, Aspergers is a milder form of autism, and the sufferers (blessed ones) don't have the empathy ability at all, or very little. Nevertheless they learn how to act, and though somewhat odd to their behaviour sometimes, it usually goes by unnoticed that they don't empathize.

To find these clues you have not only to look for them, but also know what you're looking for, which most people definately don't.

Fallacious attempts to paint every person experiencing Aspergers as lacking empathic abilities are... just that... fallacious and over-generalizing.

Empathy is a learned trait. If it has not been demonstrated well in early childhood, it will be more difficult to learn. But, one can train to be empathic... and to their advantage.
 
  • #34
baywax said:
Compassion and empathy create the natural curiosity and motivation in a person to find the best solution to a situation.

Don't mistake empathy with emotion. Empathy is the use of ones abilities to understand the basic effects of a situation on a patient's physical and psychological well being. When empathy delves into how the emotions of a patient feel, that is SYMPATHY which is not as constructive or as effective in treating a condition. Sympathy might be seen as a bottleneck in one's care of another because it causes one to pause, lament and feel as overwhelmed as one's subject in the face of what might be poor odds.

Nope it doesn't, it makes you want to be socially accepted by the person by interacting.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
baywax said:
Empathy is a learned trait. If it has not been demonstrated well in early childhood, it will be more difficult to learn. But, one can train to be empathic... and to their advantage.

OK this is just plain crap. What you speak of is sympathy. The difference between sympathy and empathy is that you learn sympathy, but you can't learn empathy. Sympathy is the ability to "suffer with someone" or "understand his/her feelings". This you do by getting experience, and then you can relate. Who do you think empathises best with getting your crouch crushed by a foot ball? Girls or boys? Obviously boys (and some genitally disfigured girls I suppose...) because most of them know how it feels, and then can sympathise.

Girls realize that the nearly castrated soprano boy is in pain, and empathizes (as do boy to, but to a lesser extent). But there's a HUGE difference.

And as goes for your idea about me generalizing, sure I do. As I generalize when I say that african-americans have GENERALLY darker skin...
 
<h2>1. What is the role of ethics in medicine?</h2><p>Ethics in medicine refers to the moral principles and values that guide the decisions and actions of healthcare professionals. It involves considering the well-being of patients, respecting their autonomy, and upholding the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.</p><h2>2. How does empathy play a role in medical practice?</h2><p>Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. In medicine, empathy is crucial in building a strong doctor-patient relationship, promoting patient satisfaction, and improving health outcomes. It allows healthcare professionals to better understand their patients' needs and concerns, leading to more effective and compassionate care.</p><h2>3. Is it possible for medicine to be both logical and empathetic?</h2><p>Yes, medicine can and should be both logical and empathetic. While medical decisions and treatments are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning, empathy should also be present in the doctor-patient relationship. A balance of both is necessary for providing comprehensive and compassionate care.</p><h2>4. How can healthcare professionals maintain ethical standards while also being empathetic?</h2><p>Healthcare professionals can maintain ethical standards while being empathetic by continuously reflecting on their actions, communicating openly and honestly with patients, and seeking guidance from colleagues and ethical committees when faced with difficult situations. They can also prioritize patient autonomy and use their empathy to understand and respect their patients' values and preferences.</p><h2>5. What are the consequences of lacking ethics and empathy in medicine?</h2><p>Lacking ethics and empathy in medicine can lead to negative consequences for both patients and healthcare professionals. Patients may feel neglected, disrespected, or even harmed if their autonomy is not respected or if they do not receive compassionate care. Healthcare professionals may experience moral distress, burnout, and damage to their professional reputation if they do not uphold ethical standards and show empathy towards their patients.</p>

1. What is the role of ethics in medicine?

Ethics in medicine refers to the moral principles and values that guide the decisions and actions of healthcare professionals. It involves considering the well-being of patients, respecting their autonomy, and upholding the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

2. How does empathy play a role in medical practice?

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. In medicine, empathy is crucial in building a strong doctor-patient relationship, promoting patient satisfaction, and improving health outcomes. It allows healthcare professionals to better understand their patients' needs and concerns, leading to more effective and compassionate care.

3. Is it possible for medicine to be both logical and empathetic?

Yes, medicine can and should be both logical and empathetic. While medical decisions and treatments are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning, empathy should also be present in the doctor-patient relationship. A balance of both is necessary for providing comprehensive and compassionate care.

4. How can healthcare professionals maintain ethical standards while also being empathetic?

Healthcare professionals can maintain ethical standards while being empathetic by continuously reflecting on their actions, communicating openly and honestly with patients, and seeking guidance from colleagues and ethical committees when faced with difficult situations. They can also prioritize patient autonomy and use their empathy to understand and respect their patients' values and preferences.

5. What are the consequences of lacking ethics and empathy in medicine?

Lacking ethics and empathy in medicine can lead to negative consequences for both patients and healthcare professionals. Patients may feel neglected, disrespected, or even harmed if their autonomy is not respected or if they do not receive compassionate care. Healthcare professionals may experience moral distress, burnout, and damage to their professional reputation if they do not uphold ethical standards and show empathy towards their patients.

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • Cosmology
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top