Medicine Health Care and Philosophy最新文献

In 2023, thousands of young Norwegian physicians joined an online movement called #legermåleve (#doctorsmustlive) and shared stories of their own mental and somatic health issues, which they considered to be caused by unacceptable working conditions. This paper discusses this case as an extreme example of physicians' and healthcare workers' suffering in late modern societies, using Vosman and Niemeijer's approach of rethinking care imaginaries by a structured process of thinking along, counter-thinking and rethinking, bringing to bear suffering as a heuristic device. Thinking along, taking the physicians' stories and arguments literally, reveals an image of an unbearable workload. Counter-thinking resituates their suffering within the broader conditions of late modernity, suggesting that the root cause may lie not in the quantity of the workload itself but in its qualities and in its perceived threat to their integrity as caregivers through epistemic and moral injury and an inability to respond to this threat. In rethinking, the ambiguity of suffering- its dual potential as both a constraint and an opening- becomes central. Following the physicians' own interpretations and the solutions emerging from this framing, both their suffering and that of their patients could paradoxically be exacerbated by further decentering physicians and reinforcing utilitarian, data-driven approaches. However, staying with their suffering and reinterpreting its causes opens possibilities to leverage critiques of medicalization at large and of their own suffering in particular, challenging the assumption that the weight of care must always grow heavier. From this reframing, I argue, it is possible to reclaim and reimagine care and the clinical space as a nexus of epistemic and moral privilege, recentering response-ability both relationally and socially.

Compassion is an essential phenomenon in the therapeutic relationship, and some use it to justify physician-assisted dying practices. The value of compassion in the relationship between healthcare professionals and patients is undeniable. However, different approaches to its definition and scope can lead to distinct conclusions about the role of compassion in end-of-life interventions. In this context, the paper aims to compare Mahatma Gandhi's and Aristotle's views on compassion to explore whether it can be utilized to justify physician-assisted dying. Gandhi's thoughts on compassion and Aristotle's standpoint on virtues and vices demonstrate that Gandhi evaluates this concept as a moral duty to relieve intractable suffering, whereas Aristotle relies on balancing all virtues through relevant deficiencies and excesses. Therefore, even though Gandhi's opinion on compassion can for allow assisted dying interventions, Aristotle's idea of virtues and vices restricts compassion to a scope that alleviates suffering through available means without causing death.

Silence is a byword for socially imposed harm in the burgeoning literature on epistemic injustice in psychiatry. While some silence is harmful and should be broken, this understanding of silence is untenably simplistic. Crucially, it neglects the possibility that silence can also play a constructive epistemic role in the lives of people with mental illness. This paper redresses that neglect. Engaging with first-person accounts of mania, it contends that silence constitutes a crucial form of epistemic agency to people who experience mania and that the prevailing failure to recognise this may harm them. The paper proceeds as follows. After briefly examining the negative understanding of silence in the epistemic injustice literature, it outlines three epistemically agential silences: communicative silence, listening silence, and withholding silence. It then deploys these concepts to explore how the ability to perform epistemically agential silence is impaired in mania and why such silences are vital to people. The penultimate section highlights two ways that the failure to recognise the epistemic value of silence can harm people with mania. The paper concludes by drawing out implications for future research on epistemic injustice in psychiatry.

Healthcare systems produce significant greenhouse gas emissions, raising an important question: should healthcare be treated like any other polluter when it comes to reducing its emissions, or is healthcare special because of its essential societal role? On one hand, reducing emissions is critical to combat climate change. On the other, healthcare depends on emissions to deliver vital services. The resulting tension surrounds an idea of healthcare exceptionalism and leads to the question I consider in this paper: to what extent (if any) should the valuable goals of healthcare form an exception to the burdens of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? The goals of this paper are twofold. One is to think about how to address the issue of healthcare exceptionalism. Second is to discuss the extent of healthcare's climatic responsibilities. I examine two perspectives on healthcare exceptionalism. The first treats a responsibility to reduce emissions and the delivery of healthcare as separate issues, each governed by its own principle. I reject this view, proposing instead that we consider healthcare's environmental responsibilities in conjunction with its essential functions. I defend an "inability to pay" principle, suggesting that while healthcare should indeed contribute to mitigating climate change, its obligations should be constrained by the necessity of maintaining its core goals like protecting health and preventing disease. Healthcare should be treated differently from other sectors, but not to the extent that it is entirely exempt from efforts to reduce emissions.

Forensic mental health services (FMHS) involve restricting certain individual rights to uphold or promote other ethical values - the restriction of liberty in various forms is justified with reference to health and safety of the individual and the community. The tension that arises from this has been construed as a hallmark of the practice and an ever-present quandary for practitioners. Stating this ethical dilemma upfront is a common point of departure for many texts discussing FMHS. But do we run the risk of missing something important if setting the ethical scene rather than exploring it? This paper draws on interviews with three types of interested parties in mental health law proceedings - patients, psychiatrists and public defenders, and seeks to tease out what values are enacted when they describe and discuss experiences of FMHS and court proceedings. In doing so, we find emphasized values such as acceptance, telling it like it is, atonement, normality, and ensuring the future. We find that well-delineated and separate values are not necessarily the basis for decisions. We also find potential for explanation and guidance in bringing ethical discourse closer to everyday practice.

Multi-professional teams have become increasingly common in healthcare. Collaboration within such teams aims to enable knowledge amalgamation across specializations and to thereby improve standards of care for patients with complex health issues. However, multi-professional teamwork comes with certain challenges, as it requires successful communication across disciplinary and professional frameworks. In addition, work in multi-professional teams is often characterized by medical dominance, i.e., the perspective of physicians is prioritized over those of nurses, social workers, or other professionals. We argue that medical dominance in multi-professional teams can lead to institutional epistemic injustice, which affects both providers and patients negatively. Firstly, it codifies and promotes a systematic and unfair credibility deflation of the perspectives of professionals other than physicians. Secondly, it indirectly promotes epistemic injustice towards patients via leading to institutional opacity; i.e., via creating an intransparent system of credibility norms that is difficult to navigate. To overcome these problems, multi-professional teamwork requires institutional settings that promote epistemic equity of team members.

There are an increasing number of ways to enhance human abilities, characteristics, and performance. In recent years, the ethical debate on enhancement has focused mainly on the ethical evaluation of new enhancement technologies. Yet, the search for an adequate and shared understanding of enhancement has always remained an important part of the debate. It was initially undertaken with the intention of defining the ethical boundaries of enhancement, often by attempting to distinguish enhancements from medical treatments. One of the more recent approaches comes from Julian Savulescu, Anders Sandberg, and Guy Kahane. With their welfarist account, they define enhancement in terms of its contribution to individual well-being: as any state of a person that increases the chances of living a good life in the given set of circumstances. The account aims to contribute both to a shared and clear understanding of enhancement and to answering the question of whether we should enhance in certain ways or not. I will argue that it cannot live up to either claim, in particular because of its inherent normativity and its failure to adequately define well-being. Nevertheless, it can make a valuable contribution to an ethics of enhancement. As I will show, the welfarist account refocuses the debate on a central value in health care: well-being, which can be a relevant aspect in assessing the permissibility of biomedical interventions - especially against the background of new bioethical challenges. To fulfil this function, however, a more differentiated understanding of well-being is needed.