尊严,人格,还是神圣的自我?痴呆护理中复杂的医学文献和护理者叙述。

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Cindy L. Cain
{"title":"尊严,人格,还是神圣的自我?痴呆护理中复杂的医学文献和护理者叙述。","authors":"Cindy L. Cain","doi":"10.1002/hast.4994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Perceptions of people living with dementia are shaped by a variety of “narratives” produced by medical authorities, family members of people living with dementia, and paid care workers. Narratives often define how a person living with dementia should be treated, with a focus on dignity and personhood. Using data from published medical literature, a discussion board for family caregivers, and participant observation of a memory-care unit of a long-term care facility, this paper compares varying narratives about dementia. The medical literature centers dignity and personhood. However, family members problematize dignity in their constructions of personhood. Meanwhile, paid care workers’ practices complicate both dignity and personhood. This paper argues that we can use sociologist Erving Goffman's concept of <i>sacred selves</i> to overcome the limitations of extant narratives and improve care for people living with dementia.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"55 S1","pages":"S64-S70"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4994","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dignity, Personhood, or Sacred Selves? Complicating Medical Literature and Caregiver Narratives in Dementia Care\",\"authors\":\"Cindy L. Cain\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hast.4994\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Perceptions of people living with dementia are shaped by a variety of “narratives” produced by medical authorities, family members of people living with dementia, and paid care workers. Narratives often define how a person living with dementia should be treated, with a focus on dignity and personhood. Using data from published medical literature, a discussion board for family caregivers, and participant observation of a memory-care unit of a long-term care facility, this paper compares varying narratives about dementia. The medical literature centers dignity and personhood. However, family members problematize dignity in their constructions of personhood. Meanwhile, paid care workers’ practices complicate both dignity and personhood. This paper argues that we can use sociologist Erving Goffman's concept of <i>sacred selves</i> to overcome the limitations of extant narratives and improve care for people living with dementia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"volume\":\"55 S1\",\"pages\":\"S64-S70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4994\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4994\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4994","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对痴呆症患者的看法是由医疗当局、痴呆症患者的家庭成员和有偿护理人员制作的各种“叙述”所塑造的。叙事通常定义了痴呆症患者应该如何治疗,重点是尊严和人格。本文利用已发表的医学文献、家庭照护者讨论板和对长期照护机构记忆照护单元的参与者观察的数据,比较了关于痴呆症的不同叙述。医学文献以尊严和人格为中心。然而,家庭成员在构建人格时却把尊严问题化了。与此同时,带薪护工的做法使尊严和人格都变得复杂。本文认为,我们可以利用社会学家欧文·戈夫曼(Erving Goffman)的神圣自我概念来克服现有叙事的局限性,改善对痴呆症患者的护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Dignity, Personhood, or Sacred Selves? Complicating Medical Literature and Caregiver Narratives in Dementia Care

Dignity, Personhood, or Sacred Selves? Complicating Medical Literature and Caregiver Narratives in Dementia Care

Perceptions of people living with dementia are shaped by a variety of “narratives” produced by medical authorities, family members of people living with dementia, and paid care workers. Narratives often define how a person living with dementia should be treated, with a focus on dignity and personhood. Using data from published medical literature, a discussion board for family caregivers, and participant observation of a memory-care unit of a long-term care facility, this paper compares varying narratives about dementia. The medical literature centers dignity and personhood. However, family members problematize dignity in their constructions of personhood. Meanwhile, paid care workers’ practices complicate both dignity and personhood. This paper argues that we can use sociologist Erving Goffman's concept of sacred selves to overcome the limitations of extant narratives and improve care for people living with dementia.

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
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
×
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