Advertisement

The Rhetoric of the ‘Passive Patient’ in Indian Medical Negligence Cases

  • Supriya SubramaniEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper, I examine the rhetoric employed by court judgements, with a particular emphasis on the narrative construct of the ‘passive patient’. This construction advances and reinforces paternalistic values, which have scant regard for the patients’ preferences, values, or choices within the legal context. Further, I critique the rhetoric employed and argue that the use of this rhetoric is the basis for a precedent that limits the understanding and respect of patients. Through this paper, I present the contemporary use of the ‘passive patient’ construct in the context of the Indian legal system and describe how such constructions have become a source of normative justification for legal reasoning that jeopardizes the patient’s agency. I argue for the primacy of ‘respect for persons’ within Indian law and the need to treat each patient as a person who has agency, preferences, and values during clinical interactions. I conclude by suggesting that laws that adopt narratives that acknowledging the significance of patient engagement and the relevance of effective communication during clinical encounters would help cultivate a culture of patient-centred care, by moving beyond the rhetoric of ‘passive patient’ and the ‘health/choice’ dichotomy.

Keywords

Respect Agency Law India Patient-centred care Consent 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Dr Calvin Ho for providing me an opportunity to present this paper at the Asian Bioethics Review Seminar on People-Centred Universal Health Coverage held at Singapore, 28–29 January 2019. I had quite engaging discussions with fellow scholars on my work, particularly during coffee breaks and commuting! In this paper, I build my argument based on the data analysis of my doctoral study. I am grateful for the grant awarded by the University Grants Commission under a Junior/Senior Research Fellowship for the doctoral work. I also thank Prof. Arvind Sivaramakrishnan for reviewing my first draft of this paper, and providing critical comments on the main argument. I thank the reviewer(s) for their comments.

References

  1. Abernethy, Viginia. 1991. Judgments about Patient Competence: Cultural and Economic Antecedents. In Competency: A Study of Informal Competency Determinations in Primary Care, edited by Mary Ann Gardell Cutter, and Earl E. Shelp. 211–226. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Roach Anleu, Sharyn L. 2000. Law and social change. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Amsterdam, Anthony G., and Jerome S. Bruner. 2002. Minding the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Appelbaum, Paul S., and Thomas Grisso. 1988. Assessing patients’ capacities to consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 319 (25): 1635–1638.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198812223192504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry, Michael J., and Susan Edgman-Levitan. 2012. Shared decision making—the pinnacle of patient-centered care. New England Journal of Medicine 366 (9): 780–781.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1109283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beach, Mary Catherine, Patrick S. Duggan, Christine K. Cassel, and Gail Geller. 2007. What does ‘respect’ mean? Exploring the moral obligation of health professionals to respect patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22 (5): 692–695.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0054-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beach, Mary Catherine, Jeremy Sugarman, Rachel L. Johnson, Jose J. Arbelaez, Patrick S. Duggan, and Lisa A. Cooper. 2005. Do patients treated with dignity report higher satisfaction, adherence, and receipt of preventive care? Annals of Family Medicine 3 (4): 331–338.  https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Berg, Jessica Wilen, Paul S. Appelbaum, Charles W. Lidz, and Lisa S. Parker. 2001. Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Berg, Jessica Wilen, Paul S. Appelbaum, and Thomas Grisso. 1995. Constructing competence: formulating standards of legal competence to make medical decisions. Rutgers Law Review 48 (2): 345–371.Google Scholar
  11. Blumenthal-Barby, Jennifer S. 2017. ‘That’s the Doctor’s job’: overcoming patient reluctance to be involved in medical decision making. Patient Education and Counseling 100 (1): 14–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. The force of law: toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal 38 (5): 805–853.Google Scholar
  13. Braddock III., Clarence H., Kelly A. Edwards, Nicole M. Hasenberg, Tracy L. Laidley, and Wendy Levinson. 1999. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 282 (24): 2313–2320.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.24.2313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brazier, Margaret. 1987. Patient autonomy and consent to treatment: the role of the law?. Legal Studies 7 (2): 169–193.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1987.tb00359.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brazier, Margaret, and Emma Cave. 1992. Medicine, patients and the law. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  16. Brazier, Margaret, and Mary Lobjoit. 2005. Protecting the vulnerable: autonomy and consent in health care. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Brazier, Margaret, and Jose Miola. 2000. Bye-bye Bolam: a medical litigation revolution? Medical Law Review 8 (1): 85–114.  https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/8.1.85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brooks, Peter, and Paul Gewirtz. 1998. Law’s stories: narrative and rhetoric in the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bullock, Emma C. 2018. Paternalism and the practitioner/patient relationship. In The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of paternalism, ed. Kalle Grill and Jason Hanna, 311–21. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bunn, Christopher. 2011. An anthropology of biomedicine. Sociology of Health & Illness 33 (5): 817–818.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01374.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Burnham, John C. 2013. Why sociologists abandoned the sick role concept. History of the Human Sciences 27 (1): 70–87.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695113507572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Buss, Sarah. 1999. Respect for persons. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29 (4): 517–550.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1999.10715990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Charland, Maurice. 1987. Constitutive rhetoric: the case of the Peuple Québécois. Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (2): 133–150.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638709383799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Collyer, Fran. 2018. Envisaging the healthcare sector as a field: moving from Talcott Parsons to Pierre Bourdieu. Social Theory & Health 16 (2): 111–126.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-017-0046-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Danelski, D.J. 1965. Values as variables in judicial decision making: notes toward a theory. Vanderbilt Law Review 19 (721): 1965–1966.Google Scholar
  27. Darwall, Stephen L. 1977. Two kinds of respect. Ethics 88 (1): 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/292054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Darwall, Stephen L. 2006. The second-person standpoint: morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Devaney, Sarah. 2005. Autonomy rules ok. Medical Law Review 13 (1): 102–107.  https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwi005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dhawale, Tejaswini, Lotte M. Steuten, and H. Joachim Deeg. 2017. Uncertainty of physicians and patients in medical decision making. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 23 (6): 865–869.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.03.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dickert, Neal W. 2009. Re-examining respect for human research participants. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (4): 311–338.  https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dunn, Michael, K.W.M. Fulford, Jonathan Herring, and Ashok Handa. 2018. Between the reasonable and the particular: deflating autonomy in the legal regulation of informed consent to medical treatment. Health Care Analysis 27 (2): 110–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-018-0358-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Edozien, Leroy C. 2015. UK law on consent finally embraces the prudent patient standard. BMJ 350: h2877.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ehrlich, Eugene, and Klaus A. Ziegert. 2001. Fundamental principles of the sociology of law. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Elwyn, Glyn, Christine Dehlendorf, Ronald M. Epstein, Katy Marrin, James White, and Dominick L. Frosch. 2014a. Shared decision making and motivational interviewing: achieving patient-centered care across the spectrum of health care problems. Annals of Family Medicine 12 (3): 270–275.  https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Elwyn, Glyn, Amy Lloyd, Carl May, Trudy van der Weijden, Anne Stiggelbout, Adrian Edwards, Dominick L. Frosch, et al. 2014b. Collaborative deliberation: a model for patient care. Patient Education and Counseling 97 (2): 158–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.07.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Entwistle, Vikki A., and Ian S. Watt. 2013. Treating patients as persons: a capabilities approach to support delivery of person-centered care. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (8): 29–39.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2013.802060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Entwistle, Vikki, Stacy M. Carter, Alan Cribb, and Kirsten McCaffery. 2010. Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25 (7): 741–745.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1292-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Entwistle, Vikki, Maria Prior, Zoe C. Skea, and Jillian J. Francis. 2008. Involvement in treatment decision-making: its meaning to people with diabetes and implications for conceptualisation. Social Science & Medicine 66 (2): 362–375.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Epstein, Ronald M., Kevin Fiscella, Cara S. Lesser, and Kurt C. Stange. 2010. Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Affairs 29 (8): 1489–1495.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Faden, Ruth R., Tom L. Beauchamp, and Nancy M. King. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Faden, Ruth R., Catherine Becker, Carol Lewis, John Freeman, and Alan I. Faden. 1981. Disclosure of information to patients in medical care. Medical Care 19 (7): 718–733.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198107000-00003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Farrell, Anne Maree, and Margaret Brazier. 2016. Not so new directions in the law of consent? Examining Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (2): 85–88.  https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Feldman, David. 1993. Civil liberties and human rights in England and Wales. Clarendon: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Flemming, Roy B., and B. Dan Wood. 1997. The public and the supreme court: individual justice responsiveness to American policy moods. American Journal of Political Science 41 (2): 468–498. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Foster, Charles. 2015. The last word on consent? New Law Journal. 165 (7647): 8.Google Scholar
  49. Freidson, Eliot. 1970. Profession of medicine: a study of the sociology of applied knowledge. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.Google Scholar
  50. Frohmann, Lisa, and Elizabeth Mertz. 1994. Legal reform and social construction: violence, gender, and the law. Law & Social Inquiry 19 (4): 829–851.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1994.tb00941.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Frosch, Dominick L., Suepattra G. May, Katharine A.S. Rendle, Caroline Tietbohl, and Glyn Elwyn. 2012. Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled ‘difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Affairs 31 (5): 1030–1038.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Grisso, Thomas, and Paul S. Appelbaum. 1998. Assessing competence to consent to treatment: a guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Groll, Daniel. 2014. Medical paternalism – part 2. Philosophy Compass 9 (3): 194–203.  https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Han, Paul K J. 2012. Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Medical Care Research and Review 70 (1_suppl): 14S–36S.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558712459361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hasian, Marouf, Celeste Michelle Condit, and John Louis Lucaites. 1996. The rhetorical boundaries of ‘the law’: a consideration of the rhetorical culture of legal practice and the case of the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine. Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (4): 323–342.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639609384161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Heritage, John, and Douglas W Maynard. 2006. Communication in medical care: interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Heywood, Rob. 2015. R.I.P. Sidaway: patient-oriented disclosure-a standard worth waiting for? Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11. Medical Law Review 23 (3): 455–466.  https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwv024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hunter, Rosemary, and Sharon Cowan. 2007. Choice and consent: feminist engagements with law and subjectivity. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Ishikawa, Hirono, Hideki Hashimoto, and Takahiro Kiuchi. 2013. The evolving concept of ‘patient-centeredness’ in patient–physician communication research. Social Science & Medicine 96: 147–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jackson, Bernard S. 1996. Anchored narratives’ and the interface of law, psychology and semiotics. Legal and Criminological Psychology 1 (1): 17–45.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1996.tb00305.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kostiner, Idit. 2003. Evaluating legality: toward a cultural approach to the study of law and social change. Law and Society Review 37 (2): 323–368.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5893.3702006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lysaught, M. Therese. 2004. Respect: or, how respect for persons became respect for autonomy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (6): 665–680.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310490883028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Macklin, Ruth. 1999. Against relativism: cultural diversity and the search for ethical universals in medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Maclean, Alasdair. 2004. The doctrine of informed consent: does it exist and has it crossed the Atlantic? Legal Studies 24 (3): 386–413.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2004.tb00255.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Maclean, Alasdair. 2009. Autonomy, informed consent and medical law: a relational challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. MaClean, Alasdair. 2005. Giving the reasonable patient a voice: information disclosure and the relevance of empirical evidence. Medical Law International 7 (1): 1–40.  https://doi.org/10.1177/096853320500700101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Makoul, Gregory, and Marla L. Clayman. 2006. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling 60 (3): 301–312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Manson, Neil C., and Onora O’Neill. 2007. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McGuire, Kevin T., and James A. Stimson. 2004. The least dangerous branch revisited: new evidence on supreme court responsiveness to public preferences. Journal of Politics 66 (4): 1018–1035.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00288.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McLean, Sheila A.M. 2010. Autonomy, Consent and the Law. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Mead, Nicola, and Peter Bower. 2000. Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social Science & Medicine 51 (7): 1087–1110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00098-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mishler, William, and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. The supreme court as a countermajoritarian institution? The impact of public opinion on supreme court decisions. American Political Science Review 87 (1): 87–101.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2938958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mocherla, Shobha, Usha Raman, and Brien Holden. 2011. Clinician-patient communication in a Glaucoma Clinic in India. Qualitative Health Research 21 (3): 429–440.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310386050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Moloney, Lawrie. 2001. Do fathers ‘win’ or do mothers ‘lose’? A preliminary analysis of closely contested parenting judgments in the Family Court of Australia. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 15 (3): 363–396.  https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/15.3.363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Montgomery, Jonathan. 2017. Patient no longer? what next in healthcare law? Current Legal Problems 70 (1): 73–109.  https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cux006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Montgomery, Jonathan, and Elsa Montgomery. 2016. Montgomery on informed consent: an inexpert decision? Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (2): 89–94.  https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Naik, Aanand D., Carmel B. Dyer, Mark E. Kunik, and Laurence B. McCullough. 2009. Patient autonomy for the management of chronic conditions: a two-component re-conceptualization. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2): 23–30.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160802654111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Parsons, Talcott. 1951. Illness and the role of the physician: a sociological perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 21 (3): 452–460.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1951.tb00003.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Parsons, Talcott. 1975. The sick role and the role of the physician reconsidered. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly Health and Society 53 (3): 257–278.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3349493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pilnick, Alison, and Robert Dingwall. 2011. On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: a critical review. Social Science & Medicine 72 (8): 1374–1382.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Politi, Mary C., Paul K.J. Han, and Nananda F. Col. 2007. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Medical Decision Making 27 (5): 681–695.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07307270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Purshouse, Craig. 2018. The impatient patient and the unreceptive receptionist: Darnley V Croydon Health Services Nhs Trust [2018] Uksc 50. Medical Law Review 27 (2): 318–329.  https://doi.org/10.1093/Medlaw/Fwy042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rao, Jaya K, Lynda A Anderson, Thomas S Inui, and Richard M Frankel. 2007. Communication interventions make a difference in conversations between physicians and patients: a systematic review of the evidence. Medical Care 45 (4): 340-9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254516.04961.d5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1993. The hollow hope: can courts bring about social change? University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  86. Roter, Debra L. 1977. Patient participation in the patient-provider interaction: the effects of patient question asking on the quality of interaction, satisfaction and compliance. Health Education Monographs 5 (4): 281–315.  https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817700500402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Van Ryn, Michelle, and Jane Burke. 2000. The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians’ perceptions of patients. Social Science & Medicine 50 (6): 813–828.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00338-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Saha, Somnath, Mary Catherine Beach, and Lisa A. Cooper. 2008. Patient centeredness, cultural competence and healthcare quality. Journal of the National Medical Association 100 (11): 1275–1285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0027-9684(15)31505-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda. 2008. SCCD 748. MANU/SC/0430/2008.Google Scholar
  90. Scheingold, Stuart A. 2010. The politics of rights: lawyers, public policy, and political change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  91. Schermer, Maartje. 2002. The different faces of autonomy: patient autonomy in ethical theory and hospital practice. 1st ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schwandt, Thomas A. 1998. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In Landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues, ed. Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln, 1:118–37. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  93. Secker, Barbara. 1999. Labeling patient (in) competence: a feminist analysis of medico-legal discourse. Journal of Social Philosophy 30 (2): 295–314.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0047-2786.00019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1997. Separation-of-powers games in the positive theory of congress and courts. American Political Science Review 91 (1): 28–44.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2952257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover. 1989. Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–565.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1962405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Roemer, Milton I., ed. 1960. Henry E. Sigerist on the Sociology of Medicine. New York, NY: MD Publications.Google Scholar
  97. Smith-Oka, Vania. 2015. Microaggressions and the reproduction of social inequalities in medical encounters in Mexico. Social Science & Medicine 143: 9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Street, Richard L., Gregory Makoul, Neeraj K. Arora, and Ronald M. Epstein. 2009. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Education and Counseling 74 (3): 295–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Subramani, Supriya. 2017. Patient autonomy within real or valid consent: Samira Kohli’s case. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2 (3): 184-189.  https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2017.038.
  100. Subramani, Supriya. 2018. The moral significance of capturing micro-inequities in hospital settings. Social Science & Medicine 209: 136–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Subramani, Supriya. 2019. Essence of ‘informed’ consent: In Indian medical judiciary and clinical practice. Chennai: Indian Institute of Technology Madras.Google Scholar
  102. Tinetti, Mary E., Aanand D. Naik, and John A. Dodson. 2016. Moving from disease-centered to patient goals--directed care for patients with multiple chronic conditions: patient value-based care. JAMA Cardiology 1 (1): 9–10.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Vecera, Vincent. 2014. The supreme court and the social conception of abortion. Law and Society Review 48 (2): 345–375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wasserman, Jason Adam, and Mark Christopher Navin. 2018. Capacity for preferences: respecting patients with compromised decision-making. Hastings Center Report 48 (3): 31–39.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wetlaufer, Gerald B. 1990. Rhetoric and its denial in legal discourse. Virginia Law Review 76 (8): 1545–1597.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1073163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. White, James Boyd. 1985. Law as rhetoric, rhetoric as law: the arts of cultural and communal life. University of Chicago Law Review 52 (3): 684–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Willems, Sara, Stéphanie De Maesschalck, Myriam Deveugele, Anselme Derese, and Jan De Maeseneer. 2005. Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor-patient communication: does it make a difference? Patient Education and Counseling 56 (2): 139–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Young, J.T. 2004. Illness behaviour: a selective review and synthesis. Sociology of Health & Illness 26 (1): 1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00376.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of MedicineUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations