Chapter 11 discusses healthcare communication ethics, and the protection and promotion of "the good of responsive hope, and the good of care for the Other in meeting moments of robust health, normal difficulties, the tragic, and the inevitable" (Arnett, Fritz, Bell, 191). This ethic consists of four praxis, but the two I would like to focus on are "responsiveness" and "care". Our book states that responsiveness is the "responsibility that meets the call of the Other, even when the call is unwanted" (191), and care is "a human answer to the call of the Other, a willingness to meet and attend to someone rather than oneself" (191).
I think care and responsiveness go hand in hand, in that if you really do care about a person, whether it be a family member, a friend, or whathaveyou, then in times of great need, specifically health-related needs of another, then you should be willing to lend a hand, without hesitation or condition. Responsiveness entails being timely as well, so when you receive a call to action regarding a love one's health, then you shouldn't take so long in addressing them. Taking forever to respond is a direct reflection on how much you actually care about the other, and I think that if someone doesn't respond in a timely matter to a person's needs, especially if it's a dire health situation, then it's a clear indication of the level of care that person has for the other.
When epidemics or potential epidemics around the world surface, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) waste no time in responding to the issues. The movie Contagion is a great example of responsiveness and care as described in our book. In the film, an extremely potent pig/bat virus (called MEV-1) becomes a wordwide epidemic and the CDC rushes to try to find its origins. Both CDC and government officials talk about various possibilities, including a bioterrorist attack. But the film in its entirety shows the CDC's willingness to research the virus and try to provide a vaccine as quickly as possible.
I agree with the outlook that within health care communication ethics responsiveness and care are a package deal. They do go hand and hand, as you mentioned which is why I especially like the statement that you made saying, "in times of great need, specifically health-related needs of another, then you should be willing to lend a hand, without hesitation or condition." I feel that your statement supports the book when it states, "care becomes the protection, the promotion, and the facilitation of human responsiveness as the defining characteristics of the good of health care communication ethics". (199)
ReplyDeleteOn the other side of this argument the book states, "health care communication ethics protects and promotes care, human caring of one for another, in a professional context where decisions affect the quality of life and, all too often, life itself. I think that this statement takes care and responsiveness to a professionals only context and by doing this it separates care from responsiveness. In health care situations like in the ER sometimes responsiveness is required to provide them with care and save someone who is in need of health care. As professionals they care for the life of this person, they were extremely responsive, but does this provide a clear indication of how much they care for this person? Or in your example does the willingness and the responsiveness of the CDC and the government clearly indicate how much they care for people as a whole, for specific individuals, or about their own lives? This is what brings up a question for me.
Are care and responsiveness correlated dependent upon the situation?
Thanks for the response, Jona, and great questions at the end!
DeleteIf Contagion is any (if at all) accurate at portraying how quickly the CDC/government are quick to respond to epidemics like that which was portrayed in the film, then I think it's good indication indeed at how much they care about the masses and containing a virus that has potential drastic worldwide effects. From beginning to the end of the film, the CDC is shown as quickly isolating the first case (patient zero in Minnesota, no less), taking necessary efforts to quarantine those who patient zero may have had contact with, and using autopsy results to begin studying zero's infected tissue. The film also shows the CDC/government quick to discredit those that try to discredit them, including revealing Jude Law's character to be a phony internet troll who was trying to push the financial agenda of a medical company whose alleged cure for the epidemic was otherwise useless. And when the CDC does finally craft a proven vaccine for the virus, they hold a lottery based on date of birth to determine distribution of the vaccine, avoiding any sort of favoritism or bias towards certain areas of the world.
To answer your last question, I think there's definitely a correlation between care/responsiveness and a given situation. For example, an epidemic like that shown in Contagion will certainly increase the need to address that situation, resulting in a positive correlation in that the level of care/responsiveness would increase along with the increased level of attention needing to be paid to combat the epidemic.