In-class reading of Kimberly Myers et al, “Broken Speech” pp. 6-11 in Clinical Ethics UNE ebook

In the Clinical Ethics, “Broken Speech,” Mr. Ito’s trust in his children could be broken or at least changed because they’re not telling him his real diagnosis, the severity, and all the options that he could choose. This prevented him from making his own decision about whether to try medication or go without it. His work shows as a metaphor at the beginning; he broke his work due to him being ill and not knowing his children, not explaining his diagnosis. He ends up not being able to continue his artwork, just like the relationship with

I can understand why Mr. Ito’s children would withhold information from their father because of the concern with the loss of their father. This ultimately hurts him in the long run, as the treatment was making him sicker than healing him. I think that by the way the PCP brings in a translator to make sure that Mr.Ito can understand his diagnosis and steps going forward, he would like to continue a treatment that had little probability of helping or go a different route. This allows him to voice his feelings and control his autonomy.

I think that this shows the many differences between curing and healing, as the children of Mr.Ito wanted him to be cured with the treatment and the medication to get rid of the disease completely. Mr.Ito just wanted to return to his home country where he could heal and become whole again, but he was not necessarily cured. I think it’s also essential that he was able to discuss it with the PCP because they can give their medical input and advice on the probability of each course of action. This is because they want the patient to do what’s best; they must respect his choice to opt out of the treatment as it is aggressive; he is also at the age where he would like to heal without treatment.