Attending to the Suffering Other: A Case Study of Teleconsultation in Palliative Care at Home

  • Jelle van GurpEmail author
  • Jeroen Hasselaar
  • Evert van Leeuwen
  • Martine van Selm
  • Kris Vissers
Reference work entry


Although this chapter has its origins in the Dutch practice of palliative care at home, its message is relevant to all countries in which a considerable percentage of the population prefers to die at home. These people usually depend to a great extent on general practitioners to realize such a death at home. Although there are exceptions, many generalists lack experience with and/or knowledge of palliative care. These limitations show themselves most in complex cases and often result in the patient being hospitalized. This chapter provides a perspective on a potential (part of the) solution to integrate generalist and specialist palliative care at the patient’s home: teleconsultation. It describes how to empirically and ethically study such a complex, technological intervention within a particular care practice, with a focus on the fit of the technology. Teleconsultation technology should be considered non-neutral. It mediates the relationships between patients and their accompanying professionals, while also coshaping experiences of virtual proximity and real-time autonomy. It can also be a constant reminder of an approaching death. Teleconsultation appears to provide opportunities for professionals to experience responsibility for a patient’s suffering and to address it adequately, although its scripts do not fill the need for meaningful moments of silence. In the end, this chapter claims that teleconsultation can be of value to the practice of palliative homecare, if special consideration has been given to its careful use by professionals. Teleconsultation requires an open and humble attitude toward both patients and colleagues, as well as sensitivity for privacy issues.



This chapter is an adaptation of three unpublished chapters from the PhD dissertation “Teleconsultation: enhancing personalized palliative care at home. An empirical-ethical analysis.” A PDF of this PhD dissertation is hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen.


  1. Abarshi E, Echteld MA, Van den Block L, Donker G, Bossuyt N, Meussen K, et al. Use of palliative care services and general practitioner visits at the end of life in the Netherlands and Belgium. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;41:436–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akrich M. The de-scription of technical objects. In: Bijker WE, Law J, editors. Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992. p. 205–24.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer KA. Home-based telemedicine: a survey of ethical issues. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2001;10(2):137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burggraeve R. Man and fellow man, responsibility and God: the metaphysical ethics of Emmanuel Levinas [Dutch: Mens en medemens, verantwoordelijkheid en God: de metafysische ethiek van Emmanuel Levinas]. 1st ed. Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco; 1986.Google Scholar
  5. Cassell EJ. The nature of suffering: and the goals of medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  6. Charmaz K. Loss of self: a fundamental form of suffering in the chronically ill. Sociol Health Illn. 1983;5:168–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2009.Google Scholar
  8. Chouliaraki L. The spectatorship of suffering. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen J, Houttekier D, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, Miccinesi G, Addington-Hall J, Kaasa S, et al. Which patients with cancer die at home? A study of six European countries using death certificate data. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(13):2267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbin JM, Strauss AL. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DasGupta S. Narrative humility. Lancet. 2008;371(9617):980–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demiris G, Oliver DP, Courtney KL. Ethical considerations for the utilization of tele-health technologies in home and hospice care by the nursing profession. Nurs Adm Q. 2006;30(1):56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Den Herder-van der Eerden M, et al. Towards accessible integrated palliative care: perspectives of leaders from seven European countries on facilitators, barriers and recommendations for improvement. J Integr Care. 2017;25(3):222–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Den Herder-van der Eerden M, et al. How continuity of care is experienced within the context of integrated palliative care: a qualitative study with patients and family caregivers in five European countries. Palliat Med. 2018;31(10):946–955. (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Desmedt M, Michel H. Palliative home care: improving co-operation between the specialist team and the family doctor. Support Care Cancer. 2002;10(4):343–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Esterle L, Mathieu-Fritz A. Teleconsultation in geriatrics: impact on professional practice. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(8):684–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank AW. Can we research suffering? Qual Health Res. 2001;11(3):353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gagnon MP, Lamothe L, Hebert M, Chanliau J, Fortin JP. Telehomecare for vulnerable populations: the evaluation of new models of care. Telemed J E Health. 2006;12:324–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardiner C, Gott M, Ingleton C. Factors supporting good partnership working between generalist and specialist palliative care services: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62:e353–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gomes B, Higginson IJ, Calanzani N, et al. Preferences for place of death if faced with advanced cancer: a population survey in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(8):2006–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Groot MM, Vernooij-Dassen MJ, Verhagen SC, Crul BJ, Grol RP. Obstacles to the delivery of primary palliative care as perceived by GPs. Palliat Med. 2007;21(8):697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ihde D. Technology and the lifeworld. From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  23. Ihde D. Postphenomenology and technoscience. The Peking University lectures. Albany: SUNY Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  24. Levinas E. Proper names. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  25. Levinas E. The human face. Essays [Dutch: Het menselijk gelaat. Essays]. 9th ed. Amsterdam: Ambo; 2005.Google Scholar
  26. Levinas E. Otherwise than being. Or beyond essence. 11th ed. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  27. Marshall D, Howell D, Brazil K, Howard M, Taniguchi A. Enhancing family physician capacity to deliver quality palliative home care: an end-of-life, shared-care model. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54(12):1703–1703.e7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Peperzak A. The one for the other – the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Man World. 1991;24:427–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pinchevsky A. The ethics of interruption: toward a Levinasian philosophy of communication. Soc Semiot. 2005;15:211–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pols J. Wonderful webcams: about active gazes and invisible technologies. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2011;36:451–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pols J. Care at a distance. On the closeness of technology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quill TE, Abernethy AP. Generalist plus specialist palliative care – creating a more sustainable model. New Engl J Med. 2013;368(13):1173–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rabow MW, Dibble SL, Pantilat SZ, McPhee SJ. The comprehensive care team: a controlled trial of outpatient palliative medicine consultation. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(1):83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radley A. Pity, modernity and the spectacle of suffering. Paper for symposium Human dignity, narrative integrity, and ethical decision-making at the end of life; 2004.Google Scholar
  35. Randall F, Downie RS. Palliative care ethics: a companion for all specialties. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Randall F, Downie RS. The philosophy of palliative care: critique and reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sandman L. A good death: on the value of death and dying. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  38. Seymour JE. Revisiting medicalisation and ‘natural’ death. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(5):691–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Statistics Netherlands [Internet]. The Hague/Heerlen: CBS. December 2017. Deaths; underlying cause of death (short list), sex, age; [cited 2018 Feb 4]. Available from:,10,20,30,40,50,60,(l-1)-l&VW=T
  40. Swierstra T, Waelbers K. Designing a good life: a matrix for the technological mediation of morality. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012;18:157–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valentijn PP, Schepman SM, Opheij W, Bruijnzeels MA. Understanding integrated care: a comprehensive conceptual framework based on the integrative functions of primary care. Int J Integr Care. 2013;13:e010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van der Velden LF, Francke AL, Hingstman L, Willems DL. Dying from cancer or other chronic diseases in the Netherlands: ten-year trends derived from death certificate data. BMC Palliat Care. 2009;8:4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Gurp J, Van Selm M, Vissers K, et al. How outpatient palliative care teleconsultation facilitates empathic patient-professional relationships: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Gurp J, Van Selm M, Van Leeuwen E, Vissers K, Hasselaar J. Teleconsultation for integrated palliative care at home: a qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2016;30(3):257–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Hooft S. Pain and communication. Med Health Care Philos. 2003;6(3):255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verbeek PP. Materializing morality: design ethics and technological mediation. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2006;31:361–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whitten P, Doolittle G, Mackert M. Telehospice in Michigan: use and patient acceptance. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2004;21(3):191–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Whitten P, Doolittle G, Mackert M. Providers’ acceptance of telehospice. J Palliat Med. 2005;8(4):730–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright et al. in WHO. Global Atlas of Palliative Care at the End of Life. Published January 2014. Accessed February 4, 2018.
  50. Young NL, Bennie J, Barden W, Dick PT. An examination of quality of life of children and parents during their Tele-Homecare experience. Telemed J E Health. 2006;12(6):663–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelle van Gurp
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeroen Hasselaar
    • 2
  • Evert van Leeuwen
    • 3
  • Martine van Selm
    • 4
  • Kris Vissers
    • 2
  1. 1.IQ healthcare/Ethics of healthcareRadboud University Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative MedicineRadboud University Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Professor Emeritus of IQ healthcare/Ethics of healthcare, Radboud University Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Amsterdam School of Communication ResearchUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations