Against the Phrase "Aggressive Care"
Language is the primary technology clinical ethicists use as they offer guidance about norms. Like any other piece of technology, to use the technology well requires attention, intention, skill, and knowledge. Word choice becomes a matter of professional practice. The Brief Report offers clinical et...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
Year: 2025, Volume: 34, Issue: 3, Pages: 513-515 |
| Further subjects: | B
Effective communication
B Healthcare communication B patient-centered care B Professionalism B clinical ethics |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | Language is the primary technology clinical ethicists use as they offer guidance about norms. Like any other piece of technology, to use the technology well requires attention, intention, skill, and knowledge. Word choice becomes a matter of professional practice. The Brief Report offers clinical ethicists several reasons for rejecting the phrase "aggressive care." Instead, ethicists should consider replacing "aggressive care" with the adjacent concept of a "recovery-focused path." The virtues of this neologism include: the opportunity to set aside the emotion of "aggression," the phrase’s accuracy when capturing the intention of the patient or their representative, and an unappreciated rhetorical force—and transparent logic—that arises when the patient’s recovery is unlikely. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-2147 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S096318012400077X |
