愤怒悖论:医生该有多愤怒?

IF 2.1 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-08-31 DOI:10.1111/bioe.70029
Sigrid Wallaert, Seppe Segers
{"title":"愤怒悖论:医生该有多愤怒?","authors":"Sigrid Wallaert, Seppe Segers","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article starts from the question: how angry should physicians be? Since the literature so far has mostly focused on patient anger, we endeavor to turn bioethical attention to physician anger instead. After specifying our central question in four different ways-in terms of its normativity, its use of the term \"physicians,\" the implied patient-directed nature of this anger, and the difference between feeling and behaving angrily-we posit the anger paradox (AP) to help guide our argument. We discuss whether anger might damage the therapeutic relationship, or whether it could be a necessary expression of care. We follow three steps in looking at whether physicians can feel, should feel, or should express anger. We complicate the question of care and its objects by introducing Frankfurt's distinction between first- and second-order desires. Finally, we look at the distinction between apt and appropriate anger, concluding that while physician anger can sometimes be apt, it is never appropriate to express toward patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Anger Paradox: How Angry Should Physicians Be?\",\"authors\":\"Sigrid Wallaert, Seppe Segers\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.70029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article starts from the question: how angry should physicians be? Since the literature so far has mostly focused on patient anger, we endeavor to turn bioethical attention to physician anger instead. After specifying our central question in four different ways-in terms of its normativity, its use of the term \\\"physicians,\\\" the implied patient-directed nature of this anger, and the difference between feeling and behaving angrily-we posit the anger paradox (AP) to help guide our argument. We discuss whether anger might damage the therapeutic relationship, or whether it could be a necessary expression of care. We follow three steps in looking at whether physicians can feel, should feel, or should express anger. We complicate the question of care and its objects by introducing Frankfurt's distinction between first- and second-order desires. Finally, we look at the distinction between apt and appropriate anger, concluding that while physician anger can sometimes be apt, it is never appropriate to express toward patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70029\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章从这个问题开始:医生应该愤怒到什么程度?由于迄今为止的文献大多集中在病人的愤怒上,我们努力将生物伦理的注意力转向医生的愤怒。在以四种不同的方式明确了我们的中心问题之后——根据其规范性、“医生”一词的使用、这种愤怒隐含的病人导向的本质,以及愤怒的感觉和行为之间的区别——我们假设愤怒悖论(AP)来帮助指导我们的论点。我们讨论愤怒是否会破坏治疗关系,或者它是否可能是一种必要的关怀表达。我们遵循三个步骤来观察医生是否能感觉到,应该感觉到,或者应该表达愤怒。我们通过引入法兰克福对一阶和二阶欲望的区分,使关心及其对象的问题复杂化。最后,我们看一下恰当愤怒和适当愤怒之间的区别,得出结论:虽然医生的愤怒有时是恰当的,但对病人表达愤怒永远不合适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Anger Paradox: How Angry Should Physicians Be?

This article starts from the question: how angry should physicians be? Since the literature so far has mostly focused on patient anger, we endeavor to turn bioethical attention to physician anger instead. After specifying our central question in four different ways-in terms of its normativity, its use of the term "physicians," the implied patient-directed nature of this anger, and the difference between feeling and behaving angrily-we posit the anger paradox (AP) to help guide our argument. We discuss whether anger might damage the therapeutic relationship, or whether it could be a necessary expression of care. We follow three steps in looking at whether physicians can feel, should feel, or should express anger. We complicate the question of care and its objects by introducing Frankfurt's distinction between first- and second-order desires. Finally, we look at the distinction between apt and appropriate anger, concluding that while physician anger can sometimes be apt, it is never appropriate to express toward patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信