Article Text
Commentary
Getting back to basics: on the need to define care in analyses of care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
↵i A similar point regarding the need to provide clear answers to questions such as ‘to what extent do physicians have responsibilities to promote the welfare of their patients’ is made by John Saunders in his excellent commentary on Newdick and Danbury (see reference 4).
↵ii It is assumed that a definition should serve the purpose of providing an understanding of the definiendum that is sufficiently robust so as to remain usefully coherent in the face of challenges to the limits or compatibilities of the term.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- NHS Constitution is “patchy, low key, and inconsistent,” says review
- Nicholson insists he will oversee NHS reorganisation, despite calls for resignation
- Public inquiry into Mid Staffs will report in the spring
- Measuring nursing care and compassion: the McDonaldised nurse?
- Conceptualisations of care: why understanding paid care is important
- Government says all NHS contracts should include whistleblowing rights
- Doctors accused of keeping their heads down at Mid Staffs trust
- Bereaved families demand public inquiry into failings at maternity units
- Expert group is to examine the effect and value of the NHS constitution
- How care holds humanity: the myth of Cura and theories of care