解释医学中认知上的不公正:走钢丝、双重束缚、阻力最小的道路以及权力位置对占据这些位置的人的隐形性

Garrath Williams
{"title":"解释医学中认知上的不公正:走钢丝、双重束缚、阻力最小的道路以及权力位置对占据这些位置的人的隐形性","authors":"Garrath Williams","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Person-centered healthcare requires providers to appreciate the knowledge and perspectives of patients. Effective and appropriate care depends on such knowledge. Medical institutions can only function well when they acknowledge patients’ own experiences. Yet a range of evidence shows that professionals and organisations often ignore patients’ own knowledge about their condition and treatment. This article aims to explain why this epistemic injustice occurs and persists. (Epistemic: to do with knowledge. Justice, because professionals and organisations do wrong when they bypass or deny patients’ own knowledge.) The explanation focuses on problems of power and accountability. Illness is a disempowering experience, partly for bodily and psychological reasons, partly because the ill person depends on others for help, partly because professionals and organisations are specially empowered in order that they may help. Occupying a lesser power position, patients often walk a tightrope between conflicting demands and may be caught in double binds: situations where every possibility for action risks bad outcomes. By contrast, professionals need not notice their greater power position and how this opens up paths of least resistance, whereby it is easy to ignore or belittle patients’ knowledge. When it is hard for patients to voice their “complaints” (the details of their illness, their sense of being badly treated), accountability falters. Healthcare providers may see themselves as expert and responsible, even as they fail many persons they are meant to help.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"5 1","pages":"323-335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining epistemic injustice in medicine: tightrope walking, double binds, paths of least resistance and the invisibility of power positions to those who occupy them\",\"authors\":\"Garrath Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1861\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Person-centered healthcare requires providers to appreciate the knowledge and perspectives of patients. Effective and appropriate care depends on such knowledge. Medical institutions can only function well when they acknowledge patients’ own experiences. Yet a range of evidence shows that professionals and organisations often ignore patients’ own knowledge about their condition and treatment. This article aims to explain why this epistemic injustice occurs and persists. (Epistemic: to do with knowledge. Justice, because professionals and organisations do wrong when they bypass or deny patients’ own knowledge.) The explanation focuses on problems of power and accountability. Illness is a disempowering experience, partly for bodily and psychological reasons, partly because the ill person depends on others for help, partly because professionals and organisations are specially empowered in order that they may help. Occupying a lesser power position, patients often walk a tightrope between conflicting demands and may be caught in double binds: situations where every possibility for action risks bad outcomes. By contrast, professionals need not notice their greater power position and how this opens up paths of least resistance, whereby it is easy to ignore or belittle patients’ knowledge. When it is hard for patients to voice their “complaints” (the details of their illness, their sense of being badly treated), accountability falters. Healthcare providers may see themselves as expert and responsible, even as they fail many persons they are meant to help.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal for person centered healthcare\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"323-335\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal for person centered healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1861\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal for person centered healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

以人为本的医疗保健要求提供者了解患者的知识和观点。有效和适当的护理取决于这些知识。医疗机构只有承认病人自己的经历,才能发挥良好的作用。然而,一系列证据表明,专业人士和组织经常忽视患者自己对病情和治疗的了解。本文旨在解释为什么这种认识上的不公正会发生并持续下去。Epistemic:与知识有关的。正义,因为专业人士和组织回避或否认患者自己的知识是错误的。)解释的重点是权力和问责问题。疾病是一种让人丧失能力的经历,部分原因是身体和心理上的,部分原因是病人依赖他人的帮助,部分原因是专业人士和组织被特别授权,以便他们可以提供帮助。患者处于权力较低的位置,经常在相互冲突的需求之间走钢丝,可能陷入双重束缚:每一种可能的行动都有可能带来不好的结果。相比之下,专业人士不需要注意到他们更大的权力地位,也不需要注意到这为他们开辟了一条阻力最小的道路,从而很容易忽视或贬低患者的知识。当病人很难说出他们的“抱怨”(他们疾病的细节,他们被虐待的感觉)时,问责制就会动摇。医疗保健提供者可能认为自己是专家和负责任的,即使他们辜负了许多他们想要帮助的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Explaining epistemic injustice in medicine: tightrope walking, double binds, paths of least resistance and the invisibility of power positions to those who occupy them
Person-centered healthcare requires providers to appreciate the knowledge and perspectives of patients. Effective and appropriate care depends on such knowledge. Medical institutions can only function well when they acknowledge patients’ own experiences. Yet a range of evidence shows that professionals and organisations often ignore patients’ own knowledge about their condition and treatment. This article aims to explain why this epistemic injustice occurs and persists. (Epistemic: to do with knowledge. Justice, because professionals and organisations do wrong when they bypass or deny patients’ own knowledge.) The explanation focuses on problems of power and accountability. Illness is a disempowering experience, partly for bodily and psychological reasons, partly because the ill person depends on others for help, partly because professionals and organisations are specially empowered in order that they may help. Occupying a lesser power position, patients often walk a tightrope between conflicting demands and may be caught in double binds: situations where every possibility for action risks bad outcomes. By contrast, professionals need not notice their greater power position and how this opens up paths of least resistance, whereby it is easy to ignore or belittle patients’ knowledge. When it is hard for patients to voice their “complaints” (the details of their illness, their sense of being badly treated), accountability falters. Healthcare providers may see themselves as expert and responsible, even as they fail many persons they are meant to help.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The ethical and epistemic roles of narrative in person-centred healthcare Person-Centred Healthcare versus Patient Centricity - what is the difference and how are pharmaceutical companies aiming to secure internal representation of the patient voice? Moving past phronesis: clinical reasoning in person-centered care Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine lifestyle and degeneracy
×
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