Medicine Health Care and Philosophy最新文献

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.

Research on understanding the self of persons with dementia (PWD) has increased significantly in the past decades across various fields of research. This has led to a profusion of novel conceptualizations of self. Meanwhile, the rise in dementia diagnoses worldwide presents us with complex global societal and individual challenges. Since the understanding of the self of PWD is vital for improving their well-being, autonomy and care needs, this article argues that there is a need to integrate and systematize these conceptualizations of self. The current state of conceptual unclarity undermines the wellbeing of PWD, since it impedes the exchange and development of (empirical) research results and ideas. With the aim of uniting and systematizing the conceptualizations of self in research on PWD, in order to develop a pragmatic, clustered approach based on the research of the field itself which can be applied in an empirical setting with PWD, this article departs from the literature reviews from the various fields involved in the research on the self of PWD. By focusing on the theoretical overlap between the conceptualizations of self employed in these reviews, four overarching clusters of self-aspects can be formulated: minimal, embodied-embedded, reflective and socially-embedded self-aspects. These clusters jointly provide the ground for self-continuity in PWD. This clustered approach provides a framework which unites the current field of research, within which new findings can be integrated and which can be applied in an empirical setting.

The research field of epistemic justice in healthcare has gained traction in the last decade. However, the importation of Miranda Fricker's original philosophical framework to medicine raises several interrelated issues that have largely escaped attention. Instead of pushing forward, crafting new concepts or exploring other medical conditions, we suggest that it is time to take stock, reconsider, and articulate some fundamental issues that confront the field of epistemic injustice in healthcare. This paper articulates such fundamental issues, which we divide into scientific, conceptual, and theoretical issues. Scientifically, the research field is confronted by a lack of empirical evidence. It relies on cases, making generalizations impossible and the field vulnerable to bias. Conceptually, many of the claims advanced in the literature are presented as facts but are merely hypotheses to be tested. Moreover, a criterion for applying the concept of testimonial injustice in medicine is lacking, impeding the development of a construct to empirically measure said injustices. Theoretically, many of the cases discussed in the literature do not prima facie qualify as cases of testimonial injustice, since they lack necessary components of testimonial injustice in Fricker's framework, i.e., being unintentional and caused by identity prejudices in the hearers. If epistemic injustice is as pervasive as it is claimed in this literature, it should be of concern to us all. Addressing the issues raised here may strengthen the conceptualization of epistemic injustice in healthcare and lead to development of constructs that finally can explore its empirical basis.

This article demonstrates the value of French philosophy of science for medical practice through an exposition of Michel Serres's philosophy of the body. It explores how Serres's examination of the similarity between scientific models and works of art can provide insight into different conceptions of the human body. What makes Serres's method of unique is that it does not see art and literature as subordinate to the natural sciences: they are both involved in mapping the communication lines of the body. Since early modernity, we can roughly speak of three successive communication models of the body: mechanical, thermodynamic and informational. This article finally discusses the relationship between those different conceptions and explains how they help to articulate different aspects of the body, health, and medical ethics.

The principle of trust has been placed at the centre as an attitude for engaging with clinical machine learning systems. However, the notions of trust and distrust remain fiercely debated in the philosophical and ethical literature. In this article, we proceed on a structural level ex negativo as we aim to analyse the concept of "institutional distrustworthiness" to achieve a proper diagnosis of how we should not engage with medical machine learning. First, we begin with several examples that hint at the emergence of a climate of distrust in the context of medical machine learning. Second, we introduce the concept of institutional trustworthiness based on an expansion of Hawley's commitment account. Third, we argue that institutional opacity can undermine the trustworthiness of medical institutions and can lead to new forms of testimonial injustices. Finally, we focus on possible building blocks for repairing institutional distrustworthiness.

Saving as many lives as possible while ensuring equity for vulnerable groups through access to triage resources has been the dominant position since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, the exact relationship between the principles of social justice and efficiency remains a controversial and unresolved issue. In this paper, we aim to systematically distinguish between different models of this relationship and show that conceptualizing social justice as a 'moral side-constraint' or adopting a 'balancing approach' that attempt to reconcile social justice with efficiency inevitably lead to significant moral costs that require further justification. Based on this discussion, we propose a novel "threshold model" for trading-off moral costs. According to this model, the structural impact of triage must be considered in order to determine whether one opts for triage with the primary aim of efficiency or social justice. This contextualization further explains why, in some societies and circumstances, social justice can rightly be seen as the primary concern, while in other societies and circumstances, efficiency can be defended as the primary concern.

The present paper highlights the urgency for a revitalization of the field of bioethics. The authors have identified the "malaise" present in contemporary bioethics, and they claim that it has become a boring way to approach medicine and life sciences instead of challenging them. Starting from a brief explanation of the origin of bioethics, this paper analyzes the main issues at the core of its malaise, i.e., its depersonalization and extreme specialization which exclude of a holistic view of the patient. Clinical ethics, an applied branch of bioethics, provides a prime example of a bioethical discipline that operates in real-world contexts, and it contrasts with the more theoretical nature of traditional bioethical frameworks. Thus, the inherent multidisciplinary nature of clinical ethics offers an opportunity to a way of connecting the hard and soft sciences, and, ultimately, of transcending this distinction in the medical humanities. The cure of the malaise of bioethics proposed in this article comes from the medical humanities, specifically from the applied humanities perspective, which offers a comprehensive approach to current world issues, including the fast evolution of technologies with applications to the health field.

Endometriosis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting 10% of biological women, is widely understudied and particularly overlooked in later life. Discussions surrounding endometriosis predominantly centre on medical gender bias during reproductive years, with limited attention to intersecting factors of discrimination and the impact of ageism on affected individuals. As endometriosis is framed as a disease of reproductive age, research is lacking when it comes to the effects of the illness on the older population. Symptoms in (post)menopausal individuals are frequently misattributed to other ailments due to ageist and sexist preconceptions, leading to prolonged diagnoses and mistreatment. This is a social justice issue in which age and sex contribute to the discrimination of a certain population - namely older biological women living with endometriosis. In this paper, we approach this issue from the perspective of epistemic justice. The experiences of the affected persons are shaped by a lack of knowledge about endometriosis among both the healthcare personal and the affected person, as well as a lack of acknowledgement and consideration of the persons experiences. Using the lens of epistemic justice, we develop an analytical model to understand the intersection of age and gender in the experiences of endometriosis patients. This article contributes to ongoing debates on epistemic injustice and intersectionality within medicine and healthcare, offering an analytical model that connects the critical approaches of epistemic injustice and intersectionality to address health injustice. Ultimately, this work advocates for a comprehensive, lifespan approach to endometriosis that acknowledges and addresses intersecting forms of discrimination.

Empirical research on moral injury (MI) has rapidly evolved since 2009. Originally developed to address the moral dimensions of traumatic experiences among US veterans, MI has also found application in the context of traumatized refugees. This paper delves into the ethical and epistemological questions that arise when applying a concept originally rooted in a qualitatively distinct experience and a demographically different population to refugees. It is argued that the prevailing clinical and psychological conceptualization of MI may not adequately accommodate the unique needs and experiences of refugee populations. This examination underscores the imperative of conceptualizing to better serve the ethical and epistemic demands of refugee communities.