Skip to main content
Log in

Medical explanations and lay conceptions of disease and illness in doctor–patient interaction

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hilary Putnam’s influential analysis of the ‘division of linguistic labour’ has a striking application in the area of doctor–patient interaction: patients typically think of themselves as consumers of technical medical terms in the sense that they normally defer to health professionals’ explanations of meaning. It is at the same time well documented that patients tend to think they are entitled to understand lay health terms like ‘sickness’ and ‘illness’ in ways that do not necessarily correspond to health professionals’ understanding. Drawing on recent philosophical theories of concept possession, the article argues that this disparity between medical and lay vocabulary implies that it is, in an important range of cases, easier for doctors to create a communicative platform of shared concepts by using and explaining special medical expressions than by using common lay expressions. This conclusion is contrasted with the view that doctors and patients typically understand each other when they use lay vocabulary. Obviously, use of expressions like ‘sickness’ or ‘illness’ does not necessarily lead to poor communication, but it is important that doctors have an awareness of how patients interpret such terms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Notes

  1. The thought that arthritis is inflammation of joints is thus understood as a different attitude (the attitude of thinking) to the same proposition. For a more detailed explanation of this assumption about concept involving propositional attitudes, see [11].

  2. It seems important to make the qualification ‘often.’ It seems reasonable to assume that satisfaction cannot always be used as a criterion for successful communication. Consider, for instance, a patient who thinks that a doctor gives a more positive prognosis than what the doctor intends to communicate. The patient may be satisfied, but communication has not been successful.

  3. More generally, in this sense of ‘understand language’ two persons will very seldom have the same understanding of a language expression. This requires that they form exactly the same beliefs about the expression, but this is unlikely to happen as long as their beliefs are shaped by their individual histories and social and cultural background [26].

  4. This will also depend on what one means by ’communication.’ As emphasised above, I do not presuppose that the idea of exchange of beliefs necessarily represents the only possible way of conceiving of successful doctor patient communication.

References

  1. Ong, L., J. de Haes, A. Hoos, and F. Lammes. 1995. Doctor–patient communication: A review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine 40 (7): 903–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Silverman, J., S. Kurtz, and J. Draper. 2004. Skills for communicating with patients. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tate, P. 2007. The doctor’s communication handbook. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Davidson, D. 1984. Inquires into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nordenfelt, L., and A. Twaddle. 1993. Disease, illness and sickness. Three central concepts in the theory of health. Linköping: Linköping University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hofmann, B. 2001. Complexity of the concept of disease as shown through rival theoretical frameworks. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22: 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nordenfelt, L. 2001. Health, science and ordinary language. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Helman, C. 1984. Culture, health and illness. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lupton, D. 1994. Medicine as culture. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Putnam, H. 1975. The meaning of “meaning.” Language, Mind and Knowledge: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7: 131–193.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Burge, T. 1979. Individualism and the mental. In Midwest studies in philosophy, ed. P. Uehling, 73–121. Minneapolis: Minneapolis University Press.

  12. Peacocke, C. 1992. A study of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Radley, A. 1994. Making sense of illness. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nettleton, S. 1995. The sociology of health and illness. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Perloff, R., B. Blonder, G. Ray, E. Ray, and L. Siminoff. 2006. Doctor–patient communication, cultural competence and minority health. American Behavioral Scientist 49 (6): 835–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pessin, A., and S. Goldberg. 1996. The twin Earth chronicles: Twenty years of reflections on Hilary Putnam’s “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Todd, A., and S. Fisher. 1993. The social organization of doctor–patient communication. Portsmouth: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gannik, D., and L. Launso, eds. 2000. Disease, knowledge and society. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Evans, G. 1982. The varieties of reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Guttenplan, S., ed. 1996. A companion to the philosophy of mind. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Putnam, H. 1981. Reason, truth and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wittgenstein, L. 1967. On certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Worhall, J., and J. Worhall. 2001. Defining disease: Much ado about nothing? Analecta Husserliana 72: 33–55.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nordby, H. 2006. Nurse–patient communication: Language mastery and concept possession. Nursing Inquiry 13 (1): 64–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fodor, J. 1998. Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Villanueva, E. 1998. Concepts: Philosophical issues. Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bezuidenhout, A. 1997. The communication of de re thoughts. Nous 31 (2): 197–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cappelen, H., and E. Lepore. 2005. Insensitive semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nordby, H. 2004. Concept possession and incorrect understanding. Philosophical Explorations 7 (1): 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gadamer, H.G. 1975. Truth and method. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Crawford, P., B. Brown, and P. Nolan. 1998. Communicating care. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pendleton, D., P. Tate, and T. Schofield. The new consultation: Developing doctor–patient communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  34. Downie, R., and J. Macnaughton. 2000. Clinical judgement: Evidence in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nordenfelt, L. 1987. On the nature of health. Dordrecht: Klüwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nordby, H. 2006. The analytic-synthetic distinction and conceptual analyses of basic health concepts. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (3): 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank anonymous referees for this journal for very helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Halvor Nordby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nordby, H. Medical explanations and lay conceptions of disease and illness in doctor–patient interaction. Theor Med Bioeth 29, 357–370 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9080-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9080-2

Keywords

Navigation