IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v306y2022ics027795362200435x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Death and the treatment imperative: Decision-making in late-stage cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Tate, Alexandra

Abstract

Care at the end-of-life in the United States has expanded in the past decade in large part due to structural changes such as increased access to hospice care, the integration of palliative care, policy mandates, and financial incentives. Despite these shifts, research shows that appropriate end-of-life care continues to be underutilized. This paper uses conversation analytic (CA) and ethnographic methods to examine doctor-patient interactions among a sample of 14 Stage IV cancer patients and the way decisions unfold about next steps in treatment during a moment that larger policy changes began to take place following passage of the Affordable Care Act. This work reveals that, despite structures designed to better facilitate end-of-life care transitions for patients in late life, doctors continue to demonstrate interactional hesitancy in discussing the possibility of a patient's end-of-life in treatment discussions and an orientation to the treatment imperative. Examining doctor-patient interaction as one key trouble source in end-of-life care implementation shows in situ evidence that the treatment imperative supersedes the structural shifts supporting less medical intervention in late life.

Suggested Citation

  • Tate, Alexandra, 2022. "Death and the treatment imperative: Decision-making in late-stage cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:306:y:2022:i:c:s027795362200435x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362200435X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115129?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    2. Mrig, Emily Hammad & Spencer, Karen Lutfey, 2018. "Political economy of hope as a cultural facet of biomedicalization: A qualitative examination of constraints to hospice utilization among U.S. end-stage cancer patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 107-113.
    3. Stivers, Tanya, 2002. "Participating in decisions about treatment: overt parent pressure for antibiotic medication in pediatric encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(7), pages 1111-1130, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    2. Hauge, Amalie M., 2020. "One last round of chemo? Insights from conversations between oncologists and lung cancer patients about prognosis and treatment decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    3. Toerien, Merran, 2021. "When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    4. Pilnick, Alison & Dingwall, Robert, 2011. "On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1374-1382, April.
    5. Bergen, Clara & McCabe, Rose, 2021. "Negative stance towards treatment in psychosocial assessments: The role of personalised recommendations in promoting acceptance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    6. Collins, Sarah & Drew, Paul & Watt, Ian & Entwistle, Vikki, 2005. "'Unilateral' and 'bilateral' practitioner approaches in decision-making about treatment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(12), pages 2611-2627, December.
    7. Wang, Nan Christine, 2020. "Understanding antibiotic overprescribing in China: A conversation analysis approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    8. Zhao, Chunjuan & Ma, Wen, 2020. "Patient resistance towards clinicians’ diagnostic test-taking advice and its management in Chinese outpatient clinic interaction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    9. Shachar, Leeor, 2022. "“You become a slightly better doctor”: Doctors adopting integrated medical expertise through interactions with E-patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    10. Fatigante, Marilena & Heritage, John & Alby, Francesca & Zucchermaglio, Cristina, 2020. "Presenting treatment options in breast cancer consultations: Advice and consent in Italian medical care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    11. Turowetz, Jason, 2022. "Interaction order and the labeling of disorder: How parents mobilize personal knowledge in the clinic to resist medicalization of their children's behavior," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    12. Schwabe, Meike & Howell, Stephen J. & Reuber, Markus, 2007. "Differential diagnosis of seizure disorders: A conversation analytic approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, August.
    13. Hudak, Pamela L. & Clark, Shannon J. & Raymond, Geoffrey, 2011. "How surgeons design treatment recommendations in orthopaedic surgery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(7), pages 1028-1036.
    14. Del Mastro N., Irene, 2022. "Providing culturally competent and universal health care in the Peruvian Amazon: The role of medical authority," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    15. Stivers, Tanya & Timmermans, Stefan, 2021. "Arriving at no: Patient pressure to prescribe antibiotics and physicians’ responses," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    16. Wang, Nan Christine & Liu, Yuetong, 2021. "Going shopping or consulting in medical visits: Caregivers’ roles in pediatric antibiotic prescribing in China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    17. Helen Bosley & Catherine Henshall & Jane V Appleton & Debra Jackson, 2018. "A systematic review to explore influences on parental attitudes towards antibiotic prescribing in children," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 892-905, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:306:y:2022:i:c:s027795362200435x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.