ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
The face of the other in the clinic: reframing patient impoliteness through phenomenological ethics in provider-patient communication.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines provider ethical responsibility in response to patient impoliteness in clinical encounters through the lens of Levinas’s phenomenological ethics. Drawing on Levinas’s philosophy of the “face-to-face” encounter, we argue that such moments of impoliteness can be interpreted not simply as breaches of civility but as expressions of vulnerability that call for ethical responsiveness—an interpretation that transforms how providers might understand and engage with conflictive interactions. Building on this perspective, we propose an Ethical Responsibility Framework organized around three orienting principles—Recognition of Vulnerability, Orientation toward the Other, and Commitment to Dignity—which translate Levinasian ethical insights into interpretive guidance for clinical communication. The framework is presented as a set of heuristic orientations that cultivate ethical attention while acknowledging that responsibility is always mediated by what Levinas calls the “third party”—the presence of multiple Others who introduce the necessity of justice, comparison, and institutional constraints. We address how infinite responsibility is necessarily complicated by considerations of resource allocation, competing patient claims, and provider well-being, drawing on recent scholarship that extends Levinas’s thought into political and institutional domains. Responding to critiques that Levinasian ethics risks rendering the subject a “hostage” and lacks a robust account of political mediation, we demonstrate that Levinasian ethics, properly understood, requires not self-sacrifice without limit but reflective mediation within institutional contexts that distribute and support ethical practice. By reframing patient impoliteness as a possible manifestation of vulnerability within asymmetrical clinical relationships, this study contributes to research on impoliteness in healthcare communication and to philosophical discussions on the application of phenomenological ethics to medical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.