Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 435–451 | Cite as

Doctor's Expertise and Managing Discrepant Information from Other Sources in Genetic Counseling: A Conversation Analytic Perspective

  • Esa LehtinenEmail author
  • Helena Kääriäinen
Original Research

Abstract

The study examines a recurrent interactional pattern in genetic counseling. It describes clinical geneticists' responses in situations in which clients have presented information from other sources that is potentially discrepant with information given by the doctor. The data consists of 12 video-recorded sessions of genetic counseling in Finland, and the method is conversation analysis. There are two primary ways the doctors respond: either they accept the client's information as such, but show that it is not discrepant with the doctor's information, or they reject the client's information. In the latter case they mitigate the ‘wrongness’ of the client's information. The clinical geneticists seem to be working with a dilemma: they need to find a balance between ensuring correct understanding of the information and showing respect for the expertise of others. A particularly complex case is also analyzed and reflected on.

Key Words

conversation analysis discrepancies expertise information delivery interaction in genetic counseling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Society of Human Genetics Ad Hoc Committee on Genetic Counseling (1975). Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet, 27, 240–242.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, E. L. (1996). Negotiating expertise in discourses of disability. Text, 16, 299–322.Google Scholar
  3. Benkendorf, J. L., Prince, M. B., Rose, M. A., De Fina, A., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). Does indirect speech promote nondirective genetic counseling? Results of a sociolinguistic investigation. Am J Med Genet, 106, 199–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergmann, J. (1992). Veiled morality: Notes on discretion in psychiatry. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 137–162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, A. C. (1994). Genetic counselling: A medical perspective. In A. Clarke (Ed.), Genetic Counselling: Practice and principles (pp. 29–43). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Biesecker, B. B. (2003). Back to the future of genetic counseling: Commentary on “Psychosocial genetic counseling in the post-nondirective era”. J Genet Couns, 12, 213–217.Google Scholar
  7. Biesecker, B. B., & Peters, K. F. (2001). Process studies in genetic counseling: Peering into the black box. Am J Med Genet, 106, 191–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, A. (1997). The process of genetic counselling: Beyond non-directiveness. In S. Harper & A. Clarke (Eds.), Genetics, society and clinical practice (pp. 179–200). Oxford: Bios Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Drew, P. (1991). Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue (pp. 21–48). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  11. Drew, P., Chatwin, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Conversation analysis: A method for research into interactions between patients and health-care professionals. Health Expect, 4, 58–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, R. (1997). The conversation object mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Res Language Soc Interact, 30, 131–156.Google Scholar
  14. Gill, V. T. (1998). Doing attributions in medical interaction: Patients' explanations for illness and doctor's responses. Soc Psychol Q, 61, 342–360.Google Scholar
  15. Gill, V. T., Halkowski, T., & Roberts, F. (2001). Accomplishing a request without making one: A single case analysis of a primary care visit. Text, 21, 55–81.Google Scholar
  16. Gill, V. T., & Maynard, D. W. (in press). Explaining illness: Patients' proposals and physicians' responses. In J. Heritage & D. W. Maynard (Eds.), Practicing medicine: Structure and process in primary care encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1982). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  18. Gordon, C., Prince, M. B., Benkendorf, J. L., & Hamilton, H. E. (2002). “People say it's a little uncomfortable”: Prenatal genetic counselors' use of constructed dialogue to reference procedural pain. J Genet Couns, 11, 245–263.Google Scholar
  19. Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
  20. Have, P. ten (1989). The consultation as a genre. In B. Torode (Ed.), Text and talk as social practice (pp. 115–135). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Have, P. ten (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Heath, C. (1992). The delivery and reception of diagnosis in the general-practice consultation. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 235–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heritage, J. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 127–144). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Heritage, J., & Maynard, D. W. (Eds.) (in press). Practicing medicine: Structure and process in primary care encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Soc Psychol Q, 68, 15–38.Google Scholar
  28. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kessler, S. (1998). Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: XII. More on counseling skills. J Genet Couns, 7, 263–278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lehtinen, E. (2005). Information, understanding and the benign order of everyday life in genetic counselling. Sociol Health Illness, 27, 575–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maynard, D. W. (1991). The perspective-display series and the delivery and receipt of diagnostic news. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 164–192). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. McCarthy Veach, P., LeRoy, B. S., & Bartels, D. M. (2003). Facilitating the genetic counseling process: A practice manual. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Peräkylä, A. (1995). AIDS counselling: Institutional interaction and clinical practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Peräkylä, A. (2002). Agency and authority: Extended responses to diagnostic statements in primary care encounters. Res Language Soc Interact, 35, 219–247.Google Scholar
  36. Peräkylä, A. (in press). Communicating and responding to diagnosis. In J. Heritage & D. W. Maynard (Eds.), Practicing medicine: Structure and process in primary care encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Peräkylä, A., & Silverman, D. (1991). Reinterpreting speech-exchange systems: Communication formats in AIDS counselling. Sociol, 25, 627–651.Google Scholar
  38. Pilnick, A. (1998). ‘Why didn't you say just that?’: Dealing with issues of asymmetry, knowledge and competence in the pharmacist/client encounter. Sociol Health Illness, 20, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pilnick, A. (2002a). ‘There are no rights and wrongs in these situations’: Identifying interactional difficulties in genetic counseling. Sociol Health Illness, 24, 66–88.Google Scholar
  40. Pilnick, A. (2002b). What ‘most people’ do: Exploring the ethical implications of genetic counselling. New Genet Society, 21, 339–350.Google Scholar
  41. Pilnick, A., & Dingwall, R. (2001). Research directions in genetic counselling: A review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns, 44, 95–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociol Inq, 50, 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pomerantz, A. (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Pomerantz, A. M. (1984b). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling 'how I know'. J Pragmat, 8, 607–625.Google Scholar
  45. Raevaara, L. (2000). Potilaan diagnoosiehdotukset lääkärin vastaanotolla: Keskustelunanalyyttinen tutkimus potilaan institutionaalisista tehtävistä. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
  46. Raevaara, L. (2001). Potilaan diagnoosiehdotukset lääkärin vastaanotolla. In M.-L. Sorjonen, A. Peräkylä & K. Eskola (Eds.), Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla (pp. 113–133). Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
  47. Ruusuvuori, J. (2000). Control in the medical consultation: Practices of giving and receiving the reason for the visit in primary healthcare. Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 16. http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-4755-7.pdf.
  48. Sacks, H. (1987). On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  49. Sarangi, S. (2000). Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity: The case of genetic counselling. In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 1–27). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  50. Sarangi, S. (2001). Editorial: On demarcating the space between ‘lay expertise' and ‘expert laity'. Text, 21, 3–11.Google Scholar
  51. Sarangi, S. (2002). The language of likelihood in genetic-counselling discourse. J Language Soc Psychol, 21, 7–31.Google Scholar
  52. Sarangi, S., Bennert, K., Howell, L., & Clarke, A. (2003). ‘Relatively speaking’: Relativisation of genetic risk in counselling for predictive testing. Health Risk Society, 5, 155–170.Google Scholar
  53. Sarangi, S., Bennert, K., Howell, L., Clarke, A., Harper, P., & Gray, J. (2004). Initiation of reflective frames in counseling for Huntingtons Disease predictive testing. J Genet Counsel, 13, 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sarangi, S., & Clarke, A. (2002a). Constructing an account by contrast in counselling for childhood genetic testing. Soc Sci Med, 54, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sarangi, S., & Clarke, A. (2002b). Zones of expertise and the management of uncertainty in genetics risk communication. Res Language Soc Interact, 35, 139–171.Google Scholar
  56. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh' and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics (pp. 71–93). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Silverman, D. (1997). Discourses of counselling: HIV counselling as social interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, A. C. M. (1998). Patient education. In D. L. Baker, J. L. Schuette, & W. R. Uhlmann (Eds.), A guide to genetic counseling (pp. 99–126). New York: Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
  60. Sorjonen, M.-L. (1989). Vuoronalkuiset konnektorit: mutta. In A. Hakulinen (Ed.), Kieli 4: Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I (pp. 162–176). Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  61. Sorjonen, M.-L. (1999). Dialogipartikkelien tehtävistä. Virittäjä, 103, 170–194.Google Scholar
  62. Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  63. Stivers, T. (2002). Participating in decisions about treatment: Overt parent pressure for antibiotic medication in pediatric encounters. Soc Sci Med, 54, 1111–1130.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Walker, A. P. (1998). The practice of genetic counseling. In D. L. Baker, J. L. Schuette, & W. R. Uhlmann (Eds.), A guide to genetic counseling (pp. 1–20). New York: Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
  65. Weil, J. (2000). Psychosocial genetic counseling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Modern Finnish and TranslationUniversity of VaasaVaasaFinland
  2. 2.Department of Medical GeneticsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Department of Clinical GeneticsTurku University HospitalTurkuFinland
  4. 4.Department of Modern Finnish and TranslationUniversity of VaasaVaasa

Personalised recommendations