In Dhruv Khullar’s “The Trouble With Medicine’s Metaphors” the main concept he brings up is his ideas of medicine being compared to warfare or items having to do with combat. With such points of bringing up points such as patients with chronic illnesses and how they will “fight it together”. He brings up many points in that conceptualizing the idea of illness as a war that it caused “more harm than good”. He also talks about metaphors especially in the medical field are used for persuasion to make the patient emotionally stronger or losing hope to their self through the way they present these metaphors. He shows this through the incorporation of the work that polish physican Zbigniew Lipowski introduced, with his presentation of how he would have his patients view illness. They saw as a result if the patient looked at the illness in a negative way such as an “enemy”, were they then more susceptible to higher depression and lower quality of life, whereas if looked to it as a “fight” their attitude would be at more positive feel. Ultimately these metaphors were used to have a better commonality with patient to doctor and to help better understand the “war” ahead of them.
In my opinion after reading this essay I feel like Khullar brings up many good arguments but also many arguments I personally do not agree with. To me I feel like his whole idea behind this essay, was to kind of push away the idea of medicine connected to war and I feel like that was an aspect I do not agree with. These two things are so culturally influenced even today, I feel like trying to switch to a new concept would not work as powerful as these do currently. A personal connection that it made was when he talked about president Nixon “declaring war on cancer”. That connected to me because almost all aspects of society has seen this phrase whether it be “war”, “fighting”, or any sort of other term against cancer for a positive cause today. At home, their is an annual walk for “fighting breast cancer” and goes to show that these connections go beyond just the patient to doctor conversations where these metaphors may pop up. I do agree with his points that the use of metaphors are key in doctor to patient conversation. In my opinion it in a sense is almost necessary, so it gives both the patient and doctor more than just a provider and person in need, but rather it almost makes a bond they can both relate on. It also makes a tough situation such as hearing they have a chronic disease seem more attainable to get through. I as a patient if were faced with that would much rather hear phrases such as “you will fight through it” rather than “its going to be a tough one, we do not know how you will progress”. I feel a point he could have added were that metaphors in a sense can motivate to reach that end goal of possible healing. All in all, I feel like his essay was good for the points he had brought up, but I feel that I could not take his side in the argument.
Metaphorically Speaking:
“Metaphorical Thinking is essential to how we understand ourselves and others, how we communicate, learn, discover and invent.” I feel like this quote intertwines all three essays that we have read, in the sense that the authors are trying to show us the persuasion that metaphors use and how they connect to us in daily life from all aspects rather it be career or any sort of task a person happens, metaphors could be seen and used everywhere sometimes even without notice.
See Through Words
“So the right metaphor must speak to inclusion and community, and suggest some benefit such as health or opportunity, that’s more widely shared”. I feel that this quote almost could connect into Khullar’s essay how it talks of metaphors being used as a benefit to health as he described “fighting” the illness.
The Trouble With Medicine’s Metaphors
“Metaphors are a fundamental mechanism through which our minds conceptualize the world around us, especially in the face of complexity” I feel this quote relates to the points that all three authors bring up that metaphors are supposed to relate to them, otherwise the metaphor itself would not be seen in the way the author hoped for, or it would not be understood at all, and defeats the”fundamental mechanism” he describes.
