Download PDFPDF

Is taking a history outmoded? Why doctors should listen to stories instead
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Disease concepts at stake in stories of individual sickness

    Arguably, the consequences of Dr. Launer’s thoughtful reflection on listening to patients as ‘the essence of medical practice’ extend even beyond what he rightly describes as ’a vital step in creating more humane and equitable interactions in medicine’ (1). For those stories of ‘individual sickness’ are what medical historian Temkin (1963) describes as one of two major ways of understanding disease itself (2). This ‘physiological’ process-based approach to disease treats patients as a unique combination of factors leading to individual episodes of sickness. It has stood in historical opposition to the ‘ontological’ approach, where disease is understood as a ‘specific entity’ in and of itself that befalls an otherwise healthy person, and it is up to the physician to pluck out a homogenous disease from a pre-established reality happening within a passive patient. It is not that one way is ‘right,’ but there are historical examples where validating stories of sickness has led to more mature insights about the origins, causes, and treatment of disease by placing the individual patient in their unique context. Doing so seems particularly important if we are to take into account health inequities. An adequate view of humanistic medicine does not stop at the patient-physician relationship (3) and thus Launer’s principle of ‘giving not taking’ should extend into health systems and policy.


    1 Launer J. Is taking a history outmoded? Why doctors should listen...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.