Talk:Patient

alternative illustration(s)

possible replacements for present illustration, i dont like the current one 'coz its difficult to see how consent can be obtained from a young child. use here is pretty much gratuitous - i think other images exist which can serve the need here. so let's see ... Doldrums 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Parental consent is sufficient for publication. The illustration below is great if someone would create a "History" section. Rklawton 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Image alignment

Why the left side?

Exception: Portraits with the head looking to the right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements. In such cases it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using {{TOCright}}. Since faces are not perfectly symmetrical it is generally inadvisable to use photo editing software to reverse a right-facing portrait image; however, some editors employ this controversial technique when it does not alter obvious non-symmetrical features (such as Mikhail Gorbachev’s birthmark) or make included text in the image unreadable.

Rklawton 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied the below from user:rklawton to continue the discussion here if necessary.

"quote"

"Moved picture as per style guide which expressly states that images should not be looking off page".

Can you please point me to where that is from, as from your edit review I do not see what you mean with it.

Also I wonder why you want to move the image to the left and the TOC to the right, when 99% of all articles have it reverse - and I feel uniformity is a good thing for these things. People expect it to be left, left is where the eye and the mouse will tend to be. We read from left to right, and all other 'control fields' of Wikipedia are to the left too. MadMaxDog 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style - I also left this information on the article's talk page. Rklawton 14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I got your point and composed a reply here, which got lost now, because we had an edit conflict. Okay, I understand your point now. However, I find that this breaks the whole layout (especially the toc right!) for the sake of a minor point. I also disagree with the flipping argument in this case, especially seeing that there is no writing etc in the image at all.

MadMaxDog 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The flipping point is a bit more obscure. In this case, the electronic leads are not symetrical so flipping the image would be misleading. It might not matter to non-medical folks, but I think a somnologist would differ. Rklawton 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think it is better that the article look weird, than that some specialist, if he looked very closely, would find something wrong, but of no account? Excuse me, but I disagree with that weighing of importance. I am trying to find a way around the matter fulfilling the letter of the law, so to speak, but I consider this a wrong emphasis.

PS I'll also copy this discussion ove to the talk page as you originally suggested.MadMaxDog 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"unquote"

I have now added another applicable image. This allows the right-looking image to be placed lower down, where it does not diplace the toc and thus break up the flow. Ihope this is a satisfactory solution. MadMaxDog 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, so I believe accuracy is important. As a photographer who has worked with article and image layouts for many years, I can tell you that left aligned images are common and that off-page looking portraits are never acceptable. I do, however, like the new image you added to the article. Though some editors take issue with black and white photography, I do not. Rklawton 15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Start

I have classified this article as a start due to the level of detail. It can be further developed by further sourcing and a history section notably on patient rights. Capitalistroadster 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Terminology?

"Due to concerns[citation needed] such as dignity, human rights and political correctness, the term "patient" is not always used to refer to a person receiving health care. Other terms that are sometimes used include health consumer, health care consumer or client."

Calling a patient a "consumer" has nothing at all to do with "human rights" or "dignity" or even "political correctness." Instead, it seems an attempt to mold how people view patient-doctor relations into something more like a business transaction. Sounds like it could be a PR campaign by another corporation trying to modify the culture to fit its agenda. I think the first sentence should be removed entirely.

Spartan2600 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by your comment, because the exact opposite is true:

Consumer is generally promoted by activists as the polite term for people with serious psychiatric disabilities. The relevant population of mental health consumers do not accept their status as a "patient" or as someone who is "sick." This language is supposed to be empowering ("the customer is always right," the customer gets to choose, the 'business' would fail if the customer didn't support it) and to imply that while this person happens to use significant health care resources, s/he is "not sick" and "doesn't need any help" -- without going so far as to say that the person is a victim of abuse that doesn't have any problems except those inflicted by society in general and psychiatrists in particular ("ex-patient" and "survivor of the mental health care system").

The 'profit-driven' approach (you are aware that nearly all non-profits are corporations?) simply calls these people "patients," and tries to treat serious psychiatric problems like any other serious disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to side with Spartan on this. The other main explanation for such dubious terms are misguided political correctness a la "vertically challenged".94.220.243.230 (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Views

I think that what is stated under the heading "Views" ("Some argue that it can be necessary to be a "bad" or "noncompliant" patient in order to recover.") is purely personal opinion. The "some" really refers to one person's opinion. Unless there are some good arguments to keep it I will remove it soon. Horus (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)