Vitamin K Metabolism and Vitamin K-Dependent Proteins

B. Levinson

Abstract:"The law should keep the parties off-balance, uncertain about the precise measure of their power or impotence regarding one another, in order to counterbalance the impulse toward destructively stereotypical choicemaking/choiceless role allocations that inevitably arise from the stressful confusions of their situation." The medium for Professor Burt's message is a series of in-depth psychological accounts of conflicted interactions. Mr. G, a blind and helpless burn victim, fights his doctors for the right to die; Catherine Lake, a mentally confused "shopping bag lady," contests civil commitment officials for her right to take care of herself; abusing parents battle themselves and their infants; subjects in the famous Milgram "obedience" experiments struggle with the demands of authority; and doctors, lawyers, and judges scrimmage with the problems created by silent patients like Karen Quinlan and Joseph Saikewicz. Each example bangs out the recurrent theme that "an objective conceptualization of an interpersonal relationship can take such rigid hold of the participants' minds that they lose common empathic identifications with one another and engage in brutally hurtful conduct." Both the examples themselves and Professor Burt's accounts stimulate reflection, challenging us to understand rather than to "pigeon-hole" ourselves and others. Nonetheless, the work is troubling because it pushes a sound insight too far, making it into an all-embracing theory that is palmed off as simple truth. Professor Burt becomes at times epistemologically cavalier, imputing to others motivations that are not nearly as clear and univocal as he portrays. He seduces the reader, overtly couching his arguments within strict limits but subliminally inflating them to encompass all facets of conflicted interactions. The account is thus artful, where the metaphor suggests the work of an artist or poet rather than that of a scientist or historian. Professor Burt paints with craftsmanship a portrait of the psychology of doctor-patient relations, but the portrait is an impressionistic one, touching base with reality only to fly off into speculation and fantasy. The suggested legal reforms seem similarly unrealistic, and Professor Burt perhaps seduces himself in seemingly directing the book to lawyers and judges. His message-that the law's clarification of roles can preempt valuable discussion of the particular fears, expectations, and confusions an unfamiliar patient brings to an interpersonal relationship with a doctor who is a stranger-belongs with physicians, especially those who prematurely invoke the law's clarity and protection. It also belongs with anyone who desires a catalyst for reflective, sensitive ponderings on doctor-patient relations and the law.