You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
A Rhesus Dilemma
Canon Blows, Dr. Thorley, Dr. Higgs, Lindley-Jones, Miss Greeves and Michael Courtenay
Journal of Medical Ethics
Vol. 3, No. 1 (Mar., 1977), pp. 36-39
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27715611
Page Count: 4
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
A family doctor encounters many problems, some of which are not strictly medical, but today he has become the first person to whom people turn when confronted with any personal difficulties which may be expressed medically. Pauline provides an example: she received good medical advice and counsel relating to her social and family context. Pauline took the advice as far as she was willing. However, the participants in the subsequent case conference thought that the problem of Rhesus incompatibility submitted to the doctor was not the crux of the matter but rather the way in which he handled it: the obvious question then to be asked is, Why did the patient consult her doctor and not some other counsellor as the problem proved not to be medical at all? Those taking part were Canon Derek Blows, counsellor and psychotherapist for the Southwark diocese and at University College Hospital, London; Bridget Greeves, Director of the Tottenham Advice Bureau; Dr Anthony Thorley, honorary senior registrar in psychiatry, Maudsley Hospital, London; Kerstin Lindley-Jones, therapist; and Dr Roger Higgs, general practitioner and organizer of this series, in the chair. Dr Michael Courtney, general practitioner, London, was not able to be present but sent his commentary.
Journal of Medical Ethics © 1977 BMJ