Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:09:01.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Commentaries: When “Everyday Language” Contributes to Miscommunication in Serious Illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2019

JASON N. BATTEN ,
BONNIE O. WONG  and
DAVID C. MAGNUS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium: New Challenges to Clinical Communication in Serious Illness
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 433 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Kon, AA, Davidson, JE, Morrison, W, Danis, M, and White, DB. Shared decision making in intensive care units: an American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society policy statement. Critical Care Medicine 2016;44(1):188–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Lynn, J. Commentary: “When I Use a Word,” with respect to Lewis Carroll. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28(3):410–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Kaufman, SR. Commentary: Whither physician talk and medicine’s tools? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28(3):405–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. See note 3, Kaufman 2019.

5. See note 2, Lynn 2019.

6. See note 3, Kaufman 2019.

7. See note 3, Kaufman 2019.

8. Batten, JN, Kruse, KE, Kraft, SA, Fishbeyn, B, Magnus, D. What does the word ‘treatable’ mean? Implications for communication and decision making in critical illness. Critical Care Medicine 2019;47(3):369–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Weinfurt, KP. Commentary: Dangerous disconnections. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28(3):413–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. See note 2, Lynn 2019.

11. Xafis, V, Wilkinson, D. Commentary: Treating ambiguity in the clinical context: Is what you hear the doctor say what the doctor means? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28(3):422–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. See note 3, Kaufman 2019.

13. See note 9, Weinfurt 2019.

14. Austin, JL. How To Do Things with Words, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1962.Google Scholar

15. Brindley, PG. Commentary: Communication: The most important “procedure” in healthcare and bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28(3):415–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. See note 11, Xafis, Wilkinson 2019.

17. Maher, J, Velikova, G, Betteley, A. Incurable, but treatable: How to address challenges for an emerging group. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 2015;5(4):322–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

18. Batten, JN, Wong, BO, Hanks, WF, Magnus, D. We convey more than we (literally) say. American Journal of Bioethics 2018;18(9):1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

19. See note 2, Lynn 2019.

20. See note 11, Xafis, Wilkinson 2019.

21. See note 11, Xafis, Wilkinson 2019.

22. Weeks, JC, Catalano, PJ, Cronin, A, et al. Patients’ expectations about effects of chemotherapy for advanced cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2012;367(17):1616–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Boodman, SG. How to teach doctors empathy. The Atlantic . 5 Mar 2015.Google Scholar

24. See note 2, Lynn 2019.

25. See note 3, Kaufman 2019.

26. Sadock, JM. On Testing for conversational implicature. In: Cole, P, ed. Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 1978:281–97.Google Scholar

27. Grice, HP. Logic and conversation. In: Grice, HP, ed. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1989:86–116.Google Scholar

28. See note 8, Batten et al. 2019.