Advertisement

Hysterectomy pp 249-256 | Cite as

Communicative and Ethical Aspects of the Doctor-Patient Relationship in Extreme Situations

  • Ibrahim AlkatoutEmail author
Chapter
  • 713 Downloads

Abstract

The prime focus of medical practice is medical care. Medical care, by its very nature, is unique, unrepeatable and irrevocable. The element of irreversibility and permanent contact with the biological existence of a patient impose an enormous burden on the physician. The human being should always be viewed as an integral whole. A doctor should avoid focusing on the illness alone, and is also expected to fulfill the patient’s expectations in regard of individual treatment and care.

The present report addresses the theoretical basis of the doctor-patient relationship and is focused on the patient’s autonomy. Fields of interaction and the increasing demands faced by physicians are discussed in detail. A successful physician-patient relationship can be learned quite easily and applied in all medical specialties. The physician-patient relationship constitutes the foundation of the patient’s satisfaction as well as the success of treatment.

The communication models presented here can be used in surgical gynecology equally for benign and malignant diseases, and should also be considered when dealing with the rising number of high-risk pregnancies.

Keywords

Physician-patient relationship Autonomy Empathy Estimation SPIKES 

References

  1. 1.
    Wieland W. Strukturwandel der Medizin und ärztliche Ethik – philosophische Überlegungen zu Grundfragen einer praktischen Wissenschaft. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag; 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gethmann CF. Gesundheit nach Maß? Eine transdisziplinäre Studie zu den Grundlagen eines dauerhaften Gesundheitssystems. Berlin: Akademie Verlag GmbH; 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers CR. Therapeut und Klient: Grundlagen der Gesprächspsychotherapie. 20th ed. Frankfurt: Fischer Verlag; 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mittelstraß J. Enzyklopädie: Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie . Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag; 2004.Special Edition edGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Argyle M. Körpersprache und Kommunikation: Das Handbuch zur nonverbalen Kommunikation. 9th ed. Junfermann Verlag: Paderborn; 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geisler LS. Patient autonomy–a critical concept analysis. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2004;129(9):453–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rogers CR. Entwicklung der Persönlichkeit. 13 th ed. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta; 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finke J. Gesprächspychotherapie – Grundlagen und spezifische Anwendungen. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith CM. Origin and uses of primum non nocere–above all, do no harm! J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;45(4):371–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schöne-Seifert B. Medizinethik. In: Nida-Rümelin J, editor. Angewandte Ethik. Die Bereichsethiken und ihre theoretische Fundierung. Ein Handbuch. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag; 2005. p. 690–803.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alkatout I, Rummer A. Intrauterines Lebensrecht von Zwillingen mit ungleichen Überlebenschancen – Kommentar zum Fall. Ethik in der Medizin. 2011;23(3):233–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gabl C, Jox RJ. Paternalism and autonomy–no contradiction. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2008;158(23–24):642–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marckmann G, Bormuth M. Arzt-Patient-Verhältnis und Informiertes Einverständnis. In: Wiesing U, editor. Ethik in der Medizin. Ein Reader. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam; 2000. p. 76–85.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krones T, Richter G. Physicians' responsibility: doctor-patient relationship. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008;51(8):818–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Engelhardt D. Ethik in der Onkologie – Dem kranken Menschen gerecht werden. Im Focus Onkologie. 2006;09:65–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marckmann G, Mayer F. Ethische Fallbesprechungen in der Onkologie – Grundlagen einer prinzipienorientierten Falldiskussion. Der Onkologe. 2009;10(15):980–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krones T, Richter G. Die Arzt-Patient-Beziehung. In: Schulz S, Seigleder K, Fangerau H, NW P, editors. Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag; 2006. p. 94–117.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolf E, Lahrmann H. The seriously affected stroke patient who is not able to communicate – treatment to the best of one’s knowledge and ethical principles. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2014;164(9–10):195–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meran JG. Palliative care and quality of life as therapy goal. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2012;162(1–2):1–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Espinel AG, Shah RK, Beach MC, Boss EF. What parents say about their child's surgeon: parent-reported experiences with pediatric surgical physicians. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(5):397–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hahn J, Mandraka F, Fröhlich G. Ethische Aspekte in der Therapie kritisch kranker Tumorpatienten. Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin. 2007;44(7):416–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ, Wilson P, Gregory WM, Armes PJ, et al. Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ. 1990;300(6737):1458–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silvestri G, Pritchard R, Welch HG. Preferences for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: descriptive study based on scripted interviews. BMJ. 1998;317(7161):771–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krones CJ, Willis S, Steinau G, Schumpelick V. Current patient perceptions of the physician. Chirurg. 2006;77(8):718–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schulz S. Person oder Keim? Der moralische Status des Ungeborenen in der Geschichte der Abtreibungsdiskussion. In: Schulz S, Seigleder K, Fangerau H, NW P, editors. Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag; 2006. p. 303–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospitals Schleswig-HolsteinCampus KielGermany

Personalised recommendations