{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01664145234493192, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015128593040847202, 'mean_word_length': 6.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Diagnosis By Television Documentary: Professional Responsibilities in Informal Encounters”

In presenting the situation of a health professional witnessing an instance of misdiagnosis and mistreatment in a television documentary, we hoped to stimulate discussion of the professional responsibilities of health workers in informal encounters in a rapidly changing environment comprising print, television, and more recently social media platforms. The commentaries on our article do not disappoint in this respect, providing insightful and sometimes challenging reactions to the position we outlined in response to our original case. In our reply here, we choose to focus on two themes running through all of the commentaries: (1) the distinction between axiological and deontic perspectives invoked by Salloch, and the open-endedness of the former that we see as crucial in addressing the constantly changing media landscape through which health workers may confront medical need; and (2) the role of institutional, structural, and social factors in constraining or enabling virtuous professional practice—suggesting perhaps a further need for health workers to take action directly against structural injustices that prevent them from fulfilling their professional responsibilities.