{"title":"Antoni认为“优秀精神病医生”的标准Kępiński。医学纪律委员会决定的例子","authors":"Iwona Wrześniewska-Wal","doi":"10.5114/ppn.2019.92488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To present the physician’s work ethic of Professor Antoni Kępiński, who, throughout his professional life, emphasized the importance of a sincere, accepting and non-judgemental approach to the patient. This was the only relationship capable, in Professor Kępiński’s opinion, of enabling the practitioner to know the patient and provide successful therapy. Do modern psychiatrists follow this concept? In practice a question arises about the current shape of the psychiatrist-patient relationship and what the relationship should look like. Views: In his numerous publications Antoni Kępiński lists errors made by psychiatrists while diagnosing and treating patients with mental disorders. Such errors can be divided into three groups: the ‘object’ error (the doctor is not treating the patient as a subject but rather as an object, their relationship is not partner-like), the ‘mask’ error (the adoption of an artificial pose that is at odds with the physician’s current actual psychic experience), and the ‘judge’ error (the doctor is judging the patient). Conclusions: Analysis of sample decisions from Regional Medical Disciplinary Boards (okręgowy sąd lekarski — OSL — ‘regional medical court’), and the Supreme Medical Disciplinary Board (Naczelny Sąd Lekarski — NSL — ‘Supreme Medical Court’) involving psychiatrists shows behaviours inconsistent with Professor Kępiński’s high ideals. Errors result mainly from a lack of ability to take a holistic view of the patient and establish appropriate contact with them as a human being. Hence, there is a need to develop the skill of doctor-patient conversation early on, in specialization training, and later throughout the psychiatrist’s entire professional life.","PeriodicalId":39142,"journal":{"name":"Postepy Psychiatrii i Neurologii","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5114/ppn.2019.92488","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ‘good psychiatrist’ standard according to Antoni Kępiński. Examples from the decisions of medical disciplinary boards\",\"authors\":\"Iwona Wrześniewska-Wal\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/ppn.2019.92488\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To present the physician’s work ethic of Professor Antoni Kępiński, who, throughout his professional life, emphasized the importance of a sincere, accepting and non-judgemental approach to the patient. This was the only relationship capable, in Professor Kępiński’s opinion, of enabling the practitioner to know the patient and provide successful therapy. Do modern psychiatrists follow this concept? In practice a question arises about the current shape of the psychiatrist-patient relationship and what the relationship should look like. Views: In his numerous publications Antoni Kępiński lists errors made by psychiatrists while diagnosing and treating patients with mental disorders. Such errors can be divided into three groups: the ‘object’ error (the doctor is not treating the patient as a subject but rather as an object, their relationship is not partner-like), the ‘mask’ error (the adoption of an artificial pose that is at odds with the physician’s current actual psychic experience), and the ‘judge’ error (the doctor is judging the patient). Conclusions: Analysis of sample decisions from Regional Medical Disciplinary Boards (okręgowy sąd lekarski — OSL — ‘regional medical court’), and the Supreme Medical Disciplinary Board (Naczelny Sąd Lekarski — NSL — ‘Supreme Medical Court’) involving psychiatrists shows behaviours inconsistent with Professor Kępiński’s high ideals. Errors result mainly from a lack of ability to take a holistic view of the patient and establish appropriate contact with them as a human being. Hence, there is a need to develop the skill of doctor-patient conversation early on, in specialization training, and later throughout the psychiatrist’s entire professional life.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Postepy Psychiatrii i Neurologii\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5114/ppn.2019.92488\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Postepy Psychiatrii i Neurologii\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/ppn.2019.92488\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postepy Psychiatrii i Neurologii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ppn.2019.92488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:介绍医生的职业道德教授安东尼Kępiński,谁,在他的职业生涯中,强调了一个真诚的,接受和非判断的方法对病人的重要性。在Kępiński教授看来,这是唯一能够使医生了解病人并提供成功治疗的关系。现代精神科医生遵循这个概念吗?在实践中,出现了一个关于精神科医生-病人关系的当前形态以及这种关系应该是什么样子的问题。观点:Antoni Kępiński在他的众多出版物中列出了精神科医生在诊断和治疗精神障碍患者时所犯的错误。这种错误可以分为三类:“客体”错误(医生没有把病人当作主体,而是把病人当作客体,他们的关系不是伴侣式的),“面具”错误(采用与医生目前的实际精神体验不一致的人工姿势),以及“判断”错误(医生在判断病人)。结论:对区域医学纪律委员会(okręgowy sąd lekarski - OSL -“区域医学法院”)和最高医学纪律委员会(Naczelny Sąd lekarski - NSL -“最高医学法院”)涉及精神科医生的样本决定的分析表明,精神科医生的行为与Kępiński教授的崇高理想不符。错误主要是由于缺乏对病人的整体看法和与他们作为一个人建立适当联系的能力。因此,有必要在早期,在专业培训中,以及在精神科医生的整个职业生涯中发展医患对话的技能。
The ‘good psychiatrist’ standard according to Antoni Kępiński. Examples from the decisions of medical disciplinary boards
Purpose: To present the physician’s work ethic of Professor Antoni Kępiński, who, throughout his professional life, emphasized the importance of a sincere, accepting and non-judgemental approach to the patient. This was the only relationship capable, in Professor Kępiński’s opinion, of enabling the practitioner to know the patient and provide successful therapy. Do modern psychiatrists follow this concept? In practice a question arises about the current shape of the psychiatrist-patient relationship and what the relationship should look like. Views: In his numerous publications Antoni Kępiński lists errors made by psychiatrists while diagnosing and treating patients with mental disorders. Such errors can be divided into three groups: the ‘object’ error (the doctor is not treating the patient as a subject but rather as an object, their relationship is not partner-like), the ‘mask’ error (the adoption of an artificial pose that is at odds with the physician’s current actual psychic experience), and the ‘judge’ error (the doctor is judging the patient). Conclusions: Analysis of sample decisions from Regional Medical Disciplinary Boards (okręgowy sąd lekarski — OSL — ‘regional medical court’), and the Supreme Medical Disciplinary Board (Naczelny Sąd Lekarski — NSL — ‘Supreme Medical Court’) involving psychiatrists shows behaviours inconsistent with Professor Kępiński’s high ideals. Errors result mainly from a lack of ability to take a holistic view of the patient and establish appropriate contact with them as a human being. Hence, there is a need to develop the skill of doctor-patient conversation early on, in specialization training, and later throughout the psychiatrist’s entire professional life.
期刊介绍:
The quarterly Advances in Psychiatry and Neurology is aimed at psychiatrists, neurologists as well as scientists working in related areas of basic and clinical research, psychology, social sciences and humanities. The journal publishes original papers, review articles, case reports, and - at the initiative of the Editorial Board – reflections or experiences on currently vivid theoretical and practical questions or controversies. Articles submitted to the journal are evaluated first by the Section Editors, specialists in the fields of psychiatry, clinical psychology, science of the brain and mind and neurology, and reviewed by acknowledged authorities in the respective field. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.