Epistemic risks in cancer screening: Implications for ethics and policy

Justin B. Biddle
{"title":"Epistemic risks in cancer screening: Implications for ethics and policy","authors":"Justin B. Biddle","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span><span>Cancer screening<span> is the subject of much debate; while screening has the potential to save lives by identifying and treating cancers in early stages, it is also the case that not all cancers cause symptoms, and the diagnosis of these cancers can lead to unnecessary treatments and subsequent side-effects and complications. This paper explores the relationships between epistemic risks in cancer diagnosis and screening, the social organization of </span></span>medical research and practice, and policy making; it does this by examining 2018 recommendations by the United States Preventative Services Task Force that patients make individualized, autonomy-based decisions about cancer screening on the basis of discussions with their physicians. While the paper focuses on </span>prostate cancer<span> screening, the issues that it raises are relevant to other cancer screening programs, especially breast cancer. The paper argues that prostate cancer screening—and, more generally, the process of risk assessment for prostate cancer—is pervaded by epistemic risks that reflect value judgments and that the pervasiveness of these epistemic risks creates significant and under-explored difficulties for physician-patient communication and the achievement of autonomous patient decision making.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":48557,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101200","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848618301857","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Cancer screening is the subject of much debate; while screening has the potential to save lives by identifying and treating cancers in early stages, it is also the case that not all cancers cause symptoms, and the diagnosis of these cancers can lead to unnecessary treatments and subsequent side-effects and complications. This paper explores the relationships between epistemic risks in cancer diagnosis and screening, the social organization of medical research and practice, and policy making; it does this by examining 2018 recommendations by the United States Preventative Services Task Force that patients make individualized, autonomy-based decisions about cancer screening on the basis of discussions with their physicians. While the paper focuses on prostate cancer screening, the issues that it raises are relevant to other cancer screening programs, especially breast cancer. The paper argues that prostate cancer screening—and, more generally, the process of risk assessment for prostate cancer—is pervaded by epistemic risks that reflect value judgments and that the pervasiveness of these epistemic risks creates significant and under-explored difficulties for physician-patient communication and the achievement of autonomous patient 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
癌症筛查中的认知风险:对伦理和政策的影响
癌症筛查是一个备受争议的话题;虽然筛查有可能通过在早期阶段发现和治疗癌症来挽救生命,但并非所有癌症都会引起症状,这些癌症的诊断可能导致不必要的治疗以及随后的副作用和并发症。本文探讨了癌症诊断和筛查中的认知风险、医学研究和实践的社会组织以及政策制定之间的关系;它通过研究2018年美国预防服务工作组(United States preventive Services Task Force)的建议来做到这一点,该建议建议患者在与医生讨论的基础上,对癌症筛查做出个性化、自主的决定。虽然这篇论文的重点是前列腺癌筛查,但它提出的问题与其他癌症筛查项目有关,尤其是乳腺癌。本文认为,前列腺癌筛查——更普遍地说,前列腺癌的风险评估过程——充斥着反映价值判断的认知风险,这些认知风险的普遍性给医患沟通和患者自主决策的实现带来了重大的、未被充分探索的困难。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences is devoted to historical, sociological, philosophical and ethical aspects of the life and environmental sciences, of the sciences of mind and behaviour, and of the medical and biomedical sciences and technologies. Contributions are from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions; we encourage both specialist articles, and articles combining historical, philosophical, and sociological approaches; and we favour works of interest to scientists and medics as well as to specialists in the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences.
期刊最新文献
A Ordem do Universo no Séc. XII: Harmonia e Epistemologia na Tradição Neoplatónica Postmodern Theory with Historical Intent Tales of Im/mobility A Conceptual Map for Twenty-First-Century Philosophy of History In Defence of a Humanistically Oriented Historiography
×
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