Conclusions 303
own viewpoint. Humanists who prioritize the integrity of narratives may
value each person’s story told as a whole; sociologists may seek under-
lying social structures; psychologists may prioritize relevance to psycho-
logical theory. Yet human lives are messy and complex. Illness threatens
not only jobs and power, but all aspects of one’s life. Hence, to provide a
sense of the whole, I have tried to integrate vantage points from these
diverse fields. As such, these doctors shed light on approaches of, and
interfaces between, the social sciences, humanities, and sciences. For each
individual, a wide range of factors and experiences combined in unique
and complex ways that narratives rather than quantitative assessments
can limn best.
This analysis can add to psychological theory; for example, though the-
oretical literature has suggested that individuals either seek (i.e., ‘‘moni-
tor’’) health information or avoid (i.e., ‘‘blunt’’) it (9, 10), here, some
‘‘monitors’’ change, becoming ‘‘blunters’’ at a certain point. At times, ill
doctors who had eagerly sought information became too sick or too anx-
ious to do so. Sociologically, as a subtype of the sick role, these physicians
suggested that a ‘‘dying role’’ or ‘‘death role’’ may exist. The individual is
no longer expected to get well, and others may distance themselves more,
at times even starting processes of mourning and grief.
Similarly, though postmodern theory focuses on issues of race, class,
and gender, the individuals here are often of the same race, social class,
and gender, but still differ widely, suggesting how more nuanced and
dynamic views of social construction are vital to understand the nuances
of individual lives. Postmodernists and post-Marxists often fail to ap-
preciate such individual variations, arising from psyche and personal
history, that are critical in comprehending individual interactions within
any one group or, potentially, dyad. These physicians’ actions reflected
not just hegemony, but other complexities of their lives. They posed
questions about other factors that may account for differences between
them.
To probe what we know and don’t yet know about doctors, patients,
and medicine today, and thus to arrive at the next level and generation
of questions has been one of the goals here. Future scholarship needs to
explore further these intersections of theories and individual lives.
Historically, these physicians’ stories both resembled and differed
from those of sick doctors in the past. To make sweeping generalizations
about possible historical change over the lives of many individuals is hard.
But some differences emerged. Since other compiled reports by different