关怀中的关怀在哪里:健康医学化与人道主义的论战

J. Lindekens, J. Jayawickrama
{"title":"关怀中的关怀在哪里:健康医学化与人道主义的论战","authors":"J. Lindekens, J. Jayawickrama","doi":"10.24926/ijps.v6i2.1975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Currently in the caring professions, the human condition of facing uncertainty and danger is often overlooked in the quest for measurable outcomes that prove efficiency, taking agency out of the hands of the individuals being cared for. Traits that make an ‘ideal’ practitioner include compassion, advocacy skills, and the ability to engage with people in vulnerable situations, and to establish trusting, respectful relationships. Within a system of models, quotas, and specialties, these traits are easily hindered within health care and humanitarianism. The critical examination in this article in no way rejects the valuable elements in the fields of humanitarianism and health care. Rather, it discusses how care can be re-introduced. Uncertainty and danger are part of the human experience, and caring interventions need to take that into account. This article highlights the benefits of a collaborative relationship between the person in crisis and the practitioner, instead of a paternalistic relationship in which the practitioner is viewed as the ‘expert.’ With a caring perspective, the individual who is experiencing the crisis will retain ownership of and responsibility for their life, and not rely solely on external sources of wellbeing and comfort.","PeriodicalId":93186,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary journal of partnership studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Where is the Care in Caring: A Polemic on Medicalisation of Health and Humanitarianism\",\"authors\":\"J. Lindekens, J. Jayawickrama\",\"doi\":\"10.24926/ijps.v6i2.1975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Currently in the caring professions, the human condition of facing uncertainty and danger is often overlooked in the quest for measurable outcomes that prove efficiency, taking agency out of the hands of the individuals being cared for. Traits that make an ‘ideal’ practitioner include compassion, advocacy skills, and the ability to engage with people in vulnerable situations, and to establish trusting, respectful relationships. Within a system of models, quotas, and specialties, these traits are easily hindered within health care and humanitarianism. The critical examination in this article in no way rejects the valuable elements in the fields of humanitarianism and health care. Rather, it discusses how care can be re-introduced. Uncertainty and danger are part of the human experience, and caring interventions need to take that into account. This article highlights the benefits of a collaborative relationship between the person in crisis and the practitioner, instead of a paternalistic relationship in which the practitioner is viewed as the ‘expert.’ With a caring perspective, the individual who is experiencing the crisis will retain ownership of and responsibility for their life, and not rely solely on external sources of wellbeing and comfort.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interdisciplinary journal of partnership studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interdisciplinary journal of partnership studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24926/ijps.v6i2.1975\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary journal of partnership studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24926/ijps.v6i2.1975","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目前,在护理行业中,在寻求证明效率的可衡量结果时,面临不确定性和危险的人类状况往往被忽视,从而使被护理者失去了代理权。成为“理想”从业者的特质包括同情心、倡导技能、与弱势群体接触的能力,以及建立信任和尊重关系的能力。在一个由模式、配额和专业组成的体系中,这些特征很容易在医疗保健和人道主义中受到阻碍。这篇文章中的批判性考察绝不拒绝人道主义和医疗保健领域的宝贵元素。相反,它讨论了如何重新引入护理。不确定性和危险是人类经验的一部分,护理干预需要考虑到这一点。这篇文章强调了危机中的人和从业者之间合作关系的好处,而不是将从业者视为“专家”的家长式关系从关爱的角度来看,经历危机的个人将保留对自己生活的所有权和责任,而不仅仅依赖于幸福和舒适的外部来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Where is the Care in Caring: A Polemic on Medicalisation of Health and Humanitarianism
Currently in the caring professions, the human condition of facing uncertainty and danger is often overlooked in the quest for measurable outcomes that prove efficiency, taking agency out of the hands of the individuals being cared for. Traits that make an ‘ideal’ practitioner include compassion, advocacy skills, and the ability to engage with people in vulnerable situations, and to establish trusting, respectful relationships. Within a system of models, quotas, and specialties, these traits are easily hindered within health care and humanitarianism. The critical examination in this article in no way rejects the valuable elements in the fields of humanitarianism and health care. Rather, it discusses how care can be re-introduced. Uncertainty and danger are part of the human experience, and caring interventions need to take that into account. This article highlights the benefits of a collaborative relationship between the person in crisis and the practitioner, instead of a paternalistic relationship in which the practitioner is viewed as the ‘expert.’ With a caring perspective, the individual who is experiencing the crisis will retain ownership of and responsibility for their life, and not rely solely on external sources of wellbeing and comfort.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信