China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Not Just Another Old Person
Published in Audrey Di Maria, Exploring Ethical Dilemmas in Art Therapy, 2019
What are your thoughts? Many ethics codes state that we should not accept gifts from our patients. Setting this boundary shows respect for the family (who might expect to inherit that watch), the client (whom we are already being paid to see), and the therapist (who would be creating a dual relationship and, possibly, generating misunderstandings or accusations if the client forgot that he gave you a present). Sometimes cultural and other factors make this difficult. The practice I have adopted is to thank genuinely, refuse politely, and suggest that the client and I each create and exchange a piece of artwork during the session. This process is in line with our agreed-upon relationship, the intention of the art making is clear, and role confusion is avoided.
Gifts and hospitality
Published in Jane Lynch, Tim Pettis, Ahmed Shoka, Medico-Legal Essentials Clinical Responsibility, 2018
Jane Lynch, Tim Pettis, Ahmed Shoka
Health professionals can receive gifts or favours from a patient, but must be confident that the giving of these gifts could not be interpreted as being in return for preferential treatment. Health professionals are also reminded, when deciding whether or not to accept a gift or favour, to consult local policy. Failure to do so could result in the health professional being in breach of their contract of employment.
Demonstrating your probity
Published in Ruth Chambers, Gill Wakley, Phil Bright, Revalidation, 2018
Stage 4: Make and carry out a learning and action plan ❱ Look at the guidance from the Royal College of General Practitioners;2 the medical defence societies3,4 and your trust/primary care organisation/practice etc. about gifts.❱ Consult a copy of the practice agreement about personal gifts. If not mentioned, insert approved form of words.❱ Discuss issues and options for proceeding in respect of this bequest, with your partners and colleagues.
Relational Reciprocity from Conversational Artificial Intelligence in Psychotherapy
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2023
In humans, that asymmetry can avoid leading to a power imbalance through reciprocity, which requires the “compassionate other” to have an ability to self-interpret (to have “self-esteem” which can be affected by the person suffering). The patient cannot give to the provider if there is nothing within the provider to receive such a gift. But this is the case with CAI; there is no ‘myself’ for CAI to interpret. Indeed, there is no value for ‘selves’ in general for CAI. If there is no ‘self’ to receive, then there is no reciprocity in the therapeutic relationship. Being a therapeutic relationship, suffering is naturally involved, making it an asymmetric relationship. And as argued earlier, an asymmetric relationship without reciprocity is one prone to power imbalance and harm. One particularly interesting potential harm is the way by which patient could be denied an aspect of what Ricoeur views as a “good life,” which is aiming at the good, with and for others. In a relationship, by engaging in care for another person, you view them as having a “self.” So, either the patient falsely values the CAI’s non-existent “self” (in the same way they might value a therapist’s “self”), or the patient recognizes that lack of self-hood and is denied the ability to value the CAI in a way that might otherwise benefit the patient to do. By this benefit, I mean that acts of caring could potentially help restore a patient from the “passivity” that Ricoeur notes as being inherent to suffering. Either way, a harm could come about through the denial of genuine reciprocity in a therapeutic alliance.
The Gift in Precision Medicine: Unwrapping the Significance of Reciprocity and Generosity
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2021
Randi Zlotnik Shaul, Dylan Shaul, James Anderson, Melissa McCradden
During holiday seasons, and indeed throughout the year, many clinicians are in the ethically complex position of receiving gifts from those to whom they provide healthcare, a phenomenon that is a consistent area of tension in professional ethics repeatedly described with uncertainty and concern by clinicians (Caddell and Hazelton 2013). This specific complexity is not necessarily a universal quality of gift-giving as such, but rather is a reflection of the particular social positions of physician and patient, and their relation to one another. In specific settings where sufficient potentially negative consequences of giving and receiving gifts have been recognized, attempts to curtail the practices have been formalized through conflict-of-interest literature, legislation, codes of ethics and policies. To build upon this work, we consider what Mauss calls the three “obligations” of the gift: the obligation to give, the obligation to receive, and the obligation to reciprocate.
Concordance among children, caregivers, and clinicians on barriers to controller medication use
Published in Journal of Asthma, 2018
Carolyn M. Arnold, Paul J. Bixenstine, Tina L. Cheng, Megan M. Tschudy
Data were collected through interviews with both quantitative and qualitative elements. Eligible families were first mailed an informational flyer inviting the child and caregiver to participate in an interview, with interviews then conducted either in person following scheduled clinic visits or via telephone. Informed consent was obtained from adult caregivers, and children assented verbally to participation. For a given family, the child and primary caregiver responded to the same interview questions separately (in person or via telephone). Their pediatric clinician, who consented through participation, completed an online survey about the participating child–caregiver dyad, with questions corresponding to those in the family interviews. Children, caregivers, and clinicians received gift cards for participation.