Clinical Ethics Consultation in Chronic Illness: Challenging Epistemic Injustice Through Epistemic Modesty.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-07 DOI:10.1007/s10730-022-09494-8
Tatjana Weidmann-Hügle, Settimio Monteverde
{"title":"Clinical Ethics Consultation in Chronic Illness: Challenging Epistemic Injustice Through Epistemic Modesty.","authors":"Tatjana Weidmann-Hügle, Settimio Monteverde","doi":"10.1007/s10730-022-09494-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Leading paradigms of clinical ethics consultation closely follow a biomedical model of care. In this paper, we present a theoretical reflection on the underlying biomedical model of disease, how it shaped clinical practices and patterns of ethical deliberation within these practices, and the repercussions it has on clinical ethics consultations for patients with chronic illness. We contend that this model, despite its important contribution to capturing the ethical issues of day-to-day clinical ethics deliberation, might not be sufficient for patients presenting with chronic illnesses and navigating as \"lay experts\" of their medical condition(s) through the health care system. Not fully considering the sources of personal knowledge and expertise may lead to epistemic injustice within an ethical deliberation logic narrowly relying on a biomedical model of disease. In caring \"for\" and collaboratively \"with\" this patient population, we answer the threat of epistemic injustice with epistemic modesty and humility. We will propose ideas about how clinical ethics could contribute to an expansion of the biomedical model of care, so that important aspects of chronic illness experience would flow into clinical-ethical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11070385/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09494-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Leading paradigms of clinical ethics consultation closely follow a biomedical model of care. In this paper, we present a theoretical reflection on the underlying biomedical model of disease, how it shaped clinical practices and patterns of ethical deliberation within these practices, and the repercussions it has on clinical ethics consultations for patients with chronic illness. We contend that this model, despite its important contribution to capturing the ethical issues of day-to-day clinical ethics deliberation, might not be sufficient for patients presenting with chronic illnesses and navigating as "lay experts" of their medical condition(s) through the health care system. Not fully considering the sources of personal knowledge and expertise may lead to epistemic injustice within an ethical deliberation logic narrowly relying on a biomedical model of disease. In caring "for" and collaboratively "with" this patient population, we answer the threat of epistemic injustice with epistemic modesty and humility. We will propose ideas about how clinical ethics could contribute to an expansion of the biomedical model of care, so that important aspects of chronic illness experience would flow into clinical-ethical decision-making.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性病的临床伦理咨询:通过认识论上的谦虚挑战认识论上的不公正。
临床伦理咨询的主要范式紧跟生物医学护理模式。在本文中,我们从理论上反思了疾病的基本生物医学模式、该模式如何塑造了临床实践和这些实践中的伦理审议模式,以及该模式对慢性病患者临床伦理咨询的影响。我们认为,尽管这种模式在把握日常临床伦理讨论的伦理问题方面做出了重要贡献,但对于慢性病患者以及作为其病情的 "非专业专家 "在医疗保健系统中穿梭来说,这种模式可能还不够。如果不充分考虑个人知识和专长的来源,可能会在狭隘地依赖于疾病生物医学模式的伦理审议逻辑中导致认识论上的不公正。在 "关爱 "这一患者群体并与他们 "合作 "时,我们要以认识论上的谦虚和谦逊来应对认识论不公正的威胁。我们将就临床伦理学如何促进生物医学护理模式的扩展提出建议,从而使慢性病经验的重要方面融入临床伦理决策中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Evaluation of Interventions to Address Moral Distress: A Multi-method Approach. Correction to: It's Worth What You Can Sell It for: A Survey of Employment and Compensation Models for Clinical Ethicists. Credentialing Character: A Virtue Ethics Approach to Professionalizing Healthcare Ethics Consultation Services. East-West Dialogues on the Ethics of Sex Robots. The SIA Can't Just Go with the FLO.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1