Ostensibly inappropriate humour: A case study of an emotional rupture

Aim: To explore areas of healthcare where the deployment of humour or response to patient-initiated humour and/or laughter by a health profession would be considered inappropriate by their peers and/or their patient and/or the patients’ family and friends. Background: Functionalist, relief and incongruity theories attempt to explain humour but there is a dearth of empirical evidence in healthcare. This is particularly so in relation to penile cancer where research shows that humour is present, and while patients value it in healthcare interaction they nevertheless fear ridicule. Method: A case design, via secondary analysis, was employed. The case was selected the Patients Experiences of Penile Cancer study for three reasons; first, the interview contained humour, second, the researchers felt it would have been inapropriate for them to use humour and, third, the interviewee broke down crying. Findings: Biographical disclosure was difficult, some chuckling emerged as a release about something uncomfortable and there was an emotional rupture that exceeded the interview, leading to a break. Conclusion: This case study extends our understanding of humour in healthcare by illustrating an emotional rupture in an encounter where the interviewee is struggling to respond, saying little in response to questions and probes for discussion. While humour can be used to build rapport, the implication of this study is that it should be avoided interaction is difficult