Abstract
A growing body of research highlights how patients’ use of the Internet, including constructing, sharing personal stories, and accessing knowledge online, gives rise to a new form of lay expertise, which may further challenge the expertise of medical professionals. Accentuating patients’ perspectives, this paper investigates the variety of positions Chinese cancer patients articulate and adopt regarding knowledge and expertise within an online support group. My analyses demonstrate that, despite being highly proactive and reflexive, these patients actually reproduce and reinforce the dualistic positioning of doctor and patient within broader discourses of scientific knowledge and authoritarian hierarchies, which eventually disempower them. I then provide an explanation of this dualism by underlining the unique reality of China in terms of the co-existence of Western scientific medicine (WSM) and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and doctor-patient hierarchies. Finally, I outline the implications of this positioning for cancer care and discuss possible solutions drawing on recent humanistic models from the West.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 309-327 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | Chinese Semiotic Studies |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 15 Aug 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 28 Aug 2018 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston 2018.
Funding
This research is funded by Faculty Research Grant (101841) of Lingnan University.
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- TCM
- cancer support group
- discourse analysis
- lay expertise
- medical science
- mind-body dualism
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of '“Is it useful to talk to other cancer patients?”: A discourse study of lay perceptions of knowledge and expertise in an online support group'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver