Abstracts fra Bibliotek for Læger 1/2018

Originalartikel: En moderne tragedie - Selvhjælp som litterært fænomen

Louise Folker Christensen & Anna Paldam Folker

A modern tragedy – self-help as a literary phenomenon.

Bibl Læger 2018;210:4-25.

Focusing on the configuration of the relationship between fate and freedom, this article analyses recent self-help literature, particularly the subgenre that centres on the concept of resilience. The selected works all address readers, who suffer from depression, anxiety and stress. We focus on how the relationship between fate and freedom is represented in three literary figures: The reader, who is promised recovery; the narrator, who promises to save the reader from the mental illnesses; and the plot, as resilience-literature contains blank spaces, in which the reader can fill out his or her personal thoughts, feelings and experiences. Furthermore, fate and freedom will be analysed in a series of allegories and metaphors. The argument will be made that the literary figures each reflects a radical understanding of personal and psychological freedom. However, the argument will also be made that each of these literary figures has a shadowy disadvantage, which activates a tragic reversal of fate. By analyzing these drawbacks, the article will identify the connection between resilience-literature and neoliberalism.

Originalartikel: Kræftfortællinger på de sociale medier - Narrative og kulturelle transformationer

Carsten Stage

Interessekonflikter

Cancer narratives on the social media.

Bibl Læger 2018;210:26-41.

This article outlines existing research on cancer patients’ use of the internet and social media and explores the narrative differences between telling a cancer story on social media (such as blogs, Facebook and Instagram) compared to the traditional book medium. The article shows that the internet plays an increasingly important role as an information resource and a narrative platform for cancer patients in Western countries, and that the narratives shared on social media are characterized by unpredictability, subjective proximity to the development of the disease and treatment process, and by a more collaborative narrative infrastructure than classical media. This media-technological change might make cancer patients and illness processes more culturally visible and contribute to patients’ sense of being active and capable

citizens despite their illness. However, it also positions various patient groups and illnesses differently, and it boosts the circulation of certain types of (heroic) patient practices, which might create a cultural pressure on other patients to perform their illness in certain ways.

Billedserie: Forladte steder i sundhedsvæsenet

Fem skarpe til forfatter, fotograf og mediemenneske Jan Elhøj om at genopdage forladte rum

Redaktionen

Fem skarpe: »Man kan og skal håndtere mentale lidelser på mange forskellige måder«

— En samtale med psykiatriprofessor Raben Rosenberg om psykiatrien før og nu

Redaktionen

Et billede fra min hverdag: Samtalen. På mit kontor. Psykiater og patient

Susanne Feierskov

Interview: Gal mand på rette vej

— En samtale med handicaphistoriker Birgit Kirkebæk og redaktør Benny Lihme om Christian Bonde og Galebevægelsens tid

Redaktionen

Kvartalets genstand: Elektrochok

Morten A. Skydsgaard

Dokumentation: En 89-årig kvinde inviteres til HPV-screening. Giver det mening?

Jytte Willadsen

Etisk stuegang: Tvang som omsorg — Udfordringen med sårbare patienter

Nana Cecilie Halmsted Kongsholm & Katla Heðinsdóttir

Interessekonflikter

Coercion as care: The challenge of vulnerable patients.

Bibl Læger 2018;210:86-95.

Following a recent legislative amendment, doctors and dentists may now subject permanently incapacitated patients to coerced treatment, if a lack of such treatment is deemed to significantly harm the patient’s health. The amendment can be seen as a response to a certain kind of vulnerability, and we therefore briefly examine the concept of vulnerability and its role in medical ethics. History reveals that previous attempts to alleviate vulnerability have sometimes backfired, and the very policies designed to protect vulnerable individuals have in fact made their situation worse. While there are clear benefits to the new legislation, we point out three aspects of the law that could arguably benefit from additional attention in order to avoid unintended harm: a clearer demarcation of ‘capacity’ and ‘incapacity’, a deeper reflection on what is meant by ‘capacity to autonomous decision-making’, and more clarity regarding which considerations to include in the assessment of when coerced treatment is in the patient’s best interest.