↓ Skip to main content

The Moral Aesthetics of Simulated Suffering in Standardized Patient Performances

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
The Moral Aesthetics of Simulated Suffering in Standardized Patient Performances
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, May 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11013-011-9211-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janelle S. Taylor

Abstract

Standardized patient (SP) performances are staged clinical encounters between health-professional students and people who specialize in role-playing the part of patients. Such performances have in recent years become increasingly central to the teaching and assessment of clinical skills in U.S. medical schools. SP performances are valued for being both "real" (in that they involve interaction with a real person, unlike written examinations) and "not real" (in that the SP does not actually suffer from the condition portrayed, unlike an actual patient). This article considers how people involved in creating SP performances reconcile a moral commitment to avoid suffering (to keep it "not real"), with an aesthetic commitment to realistically portray it (to keep it "real"). The term "moral aesthetic" is proposed, to indicate a sensibility that combines ideas about what is morally right with ideas about what is aesthetically compelling. Drawing on ethnographic research among SPs and SP program staff and medical faculty who work closely with them, this article argues that their work of creating "realism" in simulated clinical encounters encompasses multiple different (and sometimes conflicting) understandings and practices of realism, informed by three different moral aesthetics: (1) a moral aesthetic of induction, in which an accurate portrayal with a well-documented provenance serves to introduce experientially distant forms of suffering; (2) a moral aesthetic of inoculation, in which the authenticity and emotional impact of a performance are meant to inoculate students against the impact of future encounters with suffering; (3) a moral aesthetic of presence, generating forms of voice and care that are born out of the embodied presence of suffering individuals in a clinical space. All are premised on the assumption that risk and suffering can be banished from SP performances. This article suggests, however, that SP performances necessarily raise the same difficult, important, fundamentally ethical questions that are always involved in learning from and on human beings who are capable of suffering, and who need and deserve recognition and respect as well as care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 94 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Other 7 7%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 18 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 28%
Social Sciences 22 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Psychology 10 10%
Arts and Humanities 5 5%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 21 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2015.
All research outputs
#4,960,892
of 24,752,377 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#321
of 634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,114
of 114,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,752,377 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 114,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.