Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Humanities

Why we write (and how we can do it better)

Allan Peterkin
CMAJ October 19, 2010 182 (15) 1650-1652; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101329
Allan Peterkin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Increasingly, doctors are being encouraged to write about their personal experiences in clinical and academic settings. 1 The aim of such exercises is usually stated: putting something down on paper will lead to reflection about the work we do, which in turn has the potential to foster empathy and improve patient care. There are numerous sections in journals (such as this one) and blogs, new medical literary magazines (such as the one I help to edit), international courses and workshops, all of which celebrate the promise of a new medical narratology. 2

The usefulness of journaling, assembling portfolios and parallel charts and completing critical incident reports has been demonstrated with medical students and similar tasks are now being pursued with gusto by residents and graduate physicians in educational settings. Doctors in practice generally take up the pen (or tap on the keyboard) when confronting clinical uncertainty, processing powerful feelings, regrets and errors or when they (or a loved one) are facing personal illness. A few of them become famous in the process.

Writing narratives about specific clinical incidents honours the subjective experience of both doctor and patient. This is a welcome counterbalance to evidence-based practice, which emphasizes what is generalizable rather than what is unique, particular and unpredictable. We all agree that bringing story-telling back to medicine is what we and our patients need. Our predecessors knew this and did not need to perform outcome research to prove it. The act of diagnosis abbreviates an illness experience, renders it manageable (or not), but seldom fleshes it out. Diagnosis is an anti-narrative act, one which distills a lifetime into a single word or phrase. Stories, on the other hand, insist on meaning.

Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Image courtesy of ©2010 Jupiterimages Corp.

I have written throughout my career — most often for myself, as I try to make sense of my work, and sometimes for others, through publication. These two goals are very different, as is the motivation behind them.

For the last five years, I’ve helped to edit Ars Medica, a literary/medical humanities magazine, and have read hundreds of submissions. I’ve been forced to reflect on why doctors write, how and when we do it and whether there are mistakes we make as we go along. It occurs to me that this new wave of composition is not always honest, helpful or even benign. As educators, policy-makers and clinicians, we should reflect on what writing and sharing stories means to us, how we approach the task and then contemplate what the risks are to our integrity as physicians. 3

Five common errors

I commonly see five errors that doctors make when they start writing. These observations begin with elements of craft and narrative competence, but then move into murkier territories of a particular brand of medical narcissism, hunger for publication and wobbly ethics. I’ll summarize them briefly, then ask a question which I believe we should pose routinely to ourselves and to our colleagues whenever we share written stories about our patients.

1) Doctors have been taught to cut to the chase, so they usually do a lot of “telling” and not enough “showing” when they construct stories. Their narratives can be terse, pragmatic and mimic a case presentation rather than invite us into a new world. We need sounds, dialogue, colour, scents and images to enter the story. Readers, like patients, want to know that they are in good hands and that important things are not being missed.

Question: Why write this story about this patient and why now? Why do you care so much and why should we?

2) Doctors favour tidy endings, epiphanies and accounts of patients who exhibit courage and triumph over adversity. These have become the tropes of illness narratives, but they don’t capture the chaos and suffering of medical practice or of real life. Readers want to be shaken and left with a challenge, dilemma or new take. Doctors sometimes use their writing to pat themselves on the back, celebrate successes or privilege narratives of people just like themselves. Such selective recounting and editing is seldom fully conscious or intentional. Stories about the disenfranchised and our clinical “failures” are much more honest and compelling. They are more difficult to write (and lead us to more unsettling reflection), but are more interesting to read and to leave a lasting impact.

Question: What am I trying to accomplish with this story? Does the ending ring true?

3) Doctors may forget whom they’re writing for. Processing a personal dilemma or using writing as a reflective, therapeutic tool has great value, but that doesn’t make the story comprehensible or even interesting to someone else. I’ve read a lot of submissions that were spontaneous and raw, but were not ushered through the exigencies of craft to the next level of becoming a real story. There was no reader in mind when the story was constructed; it was written for the physician-self. The piece may contain clichés, medical acronyms and excessive technical detail and assumes these fully set the stage. On the flipside, some of the most compelling stories we’ve received at our journal have been written by physicians who have to re-enter and re-imagine the medical world they once inhabited after falling ill themselves. 4 Everything becomes new, foreign and menacing, and seen with new eyes. We as readers are taken on a journey.

Question: Whom is this story for: myself as learner, for a patient I wish to remember and honour, or for a literary reader who wants to be entertained and transported?

Figure2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure.

4) Neophyte physician writers may lack humility and patience. They are used to being right, calling the shots, seeing results and manifesting their authority. Many don’t accept that they are beginners with respect to writing and that creative talent (and the muses themselves) simply won’t be rushed. This reminds me of a story told by Margaret Laurence, a Canadian novelist and author of The Diviners. She was at a dinner party, sitting next to a neurosurgeon who, without guile, told her that he planned to write novels once he quit surgery. Without missing a beat, Laurence replied, “What a coincidence — when I stop writing, I plan to take up brain surgery.” Lesson learned.

Question: Where am I in my writing and where do I need to go? Can I accept being a beginner who has lots to learn about a new craft?

Figure3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure.

5) The final common error is more serious and needs to be viewed through the lenses of ethics and professionalism. Doctors may think that stories heard in their offices belong to them. If they can be shared in case conferences, they can be published as memoir, poetry, essay or nudged into fiction (with merely the slightest of changes to identifying details). This notion is deeply flawed and suggests a conflict of interest. Stories are co-constructed and permission from the patient or his family must be sought out (and documented) if the medical encounter is to be morphed into a published form. (My own experience is that patients feel honoured that their story will be shared and may benefit others. Some write rebuttals or parallel pieces. Some want certain details changed. Seldom do they refuse to have the story appear in print.) Fiction-writing physicians, if they are honest with themselves, can usually identify the impetus for a story — a singular image, facial expression or a patient’s unique way of saying something. Part of craft is using that detail as a point of departure, then moving into something entirely new. You have to ask yourself, could anybody identify this patient/clinical detail or story/family if they read my piece? If you have doubts that your writer’s hat is taking precedence over your physician one, then you need to edit, revise, re-tell or get the opinion of a trusted colleague.

Part of physician grandiosity involves rationalizing that minor changes suffice to render the tale fictional or suggesting that “the patient will never read this anyway.” Not so in a plugged-in, Internet world. (Not so in a litigious world either —I’ve heard of doctors’ personal reflection notes or parallel charts being subpoenaed as a part of a discovery for litigation. Check your clinic’s policy on where and how such notes should be kept, and whether their very existence should be referenced in the chart.)

Encouraging (or forcing) the sharing of stories among students and colleagues invites questions about boundaries, confidentiality, respect and potential stigmatization. Something can’t be untold once it’s out there. Pseudo-therapy is not the goal of this type of reflective writing, and the vulnerabilities of the teller and the maturity of the group must always be respected. (Writing is generally self-dosed in that people tell what they can or what they’re ready for. Forcing premature closure or probing threads not yet conscious to the teller can do damage to both the story and its teller.)

Question: Whose story is this?

Finally, I worry that we may come to use stories as a balm for what ails our profession. Band-aid narratives make us feel good about what we do. We publish them in faculty or hospital magazines (although some of these institutions embrace less than admirable practices). We placate, have our alter-author-egos stroked, and are placated ourselves. Stories can also be about control (propaganda being the perfect example). Once we pay more attention to patient narratives, how will we select, shape, manipulate and edit them and to what end? It’s not up to us to determine what they mean or influence how they end, even as we see the plot unfolding.

Final Question: Writing and sharing stories has made me more reflective and narratively competent. How am I using this new skill? Is patient care being served 5 or is this more linked to physician control, entitlement and advancement for me as an aspiring author?

Footnotes

  • Previously published at www.cmaj.ca

    Allan Peterkin is a founding editor of Ars Medica: A Journal of Medicine, The Arts and Humanities (www.ars-medica.ca).

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Charon R. Narrative and Medicine. N Engl J Med 2004;350:862–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Hatem D, Rider EA. Sharing stories: narrative medicine in an evidence based world. Patient Educ Couns 2004;54:251–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Mann K, Gordon J, MacLeod A. Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009;14:595–621.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Pennebaker JW. Telling Stories: The Health Benefits of Narrative. Lit & Med 2000;19:3–18.
  5. 5.↵
    Zuger A. Doctors who wield the pen to heal the profession. The New York Times. 2007 May 15.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 182 (15)
CMAJ
Vol. 182, Issue 15
19 Oct 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Why we write (and how we can do it better)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Why we write (and how we can do it better)
Allan Peterkin
CMAJ Oct 2010, 182 (15) 1650-1652; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.101329

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Why we write (and how we can do it better)
Allan Peterkin
CMAJ Oct 2010, 182 (15) 1650-1652; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.101329
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Five common errors
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The butterfly
  • Are we going to talk about it?
  • Grief on the phone
Show more Humanities

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Physician health
    • Medical humanities

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire