The aim of this study is to explore how nurses perceive patient participations of patients over 75 years old undergoing hemodialysis treatment in dialysis units, and of their next of kin. Ten nurses told stories about what happened in the dialysis units. These stories were analyzed with critical discourse analysis. Three discursive practices are found: (1) the nurses’ power and control; (2) sharing power with the patient; and (3) transferring power to the next of kin. The first and the predominant (...) discursive practice can be explained with an ideology of paternalism, in which the nurses used biomedical explanations and the ethical principle of benefice to justify their actions. The second can be explained with an ideology of participation, in which the nurses used ethical narratives as a way to let the patients participate in the treatment. The third seemed to involve autonomous decision-making and the ethical principle of autonomy for the next of kin in the difficult end-of-life decisions. (shrink)

Background: Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948, human rights as set out in government documents have gradually changed, with more and more power being transferred to individual. Objectives: The aim of this article is to analyze how the position of the patient in need of care is constructed in Norway’s renamed and revised Patients’ and Service Users’ Rights Act (originally Patients’ Rights Act, 1999) and published comments which accompanying this legislation (...) from the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Service. Research design: A constructivist design was used, and Fairclough’s critical discourse approach was adopted to analyze the text of the Patients’ and Service Users’ Rights Act and comments. Findings: The analysis identified three discourses: (a) political discourse, containing ethical discourses about priority and economy, in which patients are constructed as powerless individuals; (b) expert discourse, containing a theme about patients’ trust in the healthcare team and its knowledge, in which patients are constructed as helpless individuals lacking knowledge; and (c) patient participation and patient autonomy discourse, containing ethical discourses about decision-making, in which patients are constructed not only as individuals with needs and rights but also as “troublesome.” Conclusion: Dominant paternalistic discourses in the legal text validate the power of medicine, the healthcare system, and heath personnel over the needs, rights, participation, and autonomy of the patient. (shrink)

Background: According to Norwegian law, nurses are obligated to provide an acceptable level of health assistance to patients and their family members and to allow patients and their family members to participate in the planning of patient care and treatment. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the perceptions of older patients undergoing haemodialysis treatment and of their next of kin and of nurses regarding patient participation in the context of haemodialysis treatment. Research design: The study adopts an (...) approach that is both comparative and explorative in nature by examining the narratives of patients, nurses and next of kin and by performing critical discourse analysis as outlined by Fairclough. Ethical considerations: Permission to carry out the research was granted by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics of Mid-Norway and by the participating hospitals. Informed consent and confidentiality were ensured. Findings: Two discourses were found: (a) the discourse of paternalism with the discursive practices of achieving physiological balance in patients, trusting the healthcare team and being excluded or included in the difficult end-of-life decision-making process, and (b) the discourse of patient participation, with the themes of maintaining patients’ quality of life and trusting patients. Conclusion: The participation of older patients and their next of kin was not as well integrated as social practice in dialysis units. The dominant discourse seemed to have an ideology and social practice of paternalism. However, there existed hegemonic struggles for an ideology of patient participation that involved (a) achieving physiological balance in patients versus maintaining patients’ quality of life, (b) trusting the healthcare team versus trusting the patient, and (c) being excluded versus included in the difficult end-of-life decision-making process. (shrink)