Health care services increasingly face patient populations with high levels of ethnic and cultural diversity. Cultures are associated with distinctive ways of life; concepts of personhood; value systems; and visions of the good that affect illness experience, help seeking, and clinical decision-making. Cultural differences may impede access to health care, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatment. The clinical encounter, therefore, must recognize relevant cultural differences, negotiate common ground in terms of problem definition and potential solutions, accommodate differences that are associated with (...) good clinical outcomes, and manage irresolvable differences. Clinical attention to and respect for cultural difference (a) can provide experiences of recognition that increase trust in and commitment to the institutions of the larger society, (b) can help sustain a cultural community through recognition of its distinct language, knowledge, values, and healing practices, and (c) to the extent that it is institutionalized, can contribute to building a pluralistic civil society. (shrink)

Although bioethics is a lively and expanding interdisciplinary field, there is not enough research about the patient‐doctor relationship, a central issue in philosophy of medicine. This article surveys the state of the field, paying attention to recent work by Alfred Tauber, and supplementing it with insights from Hans Jonas's philosophy of technology in order to propose a principle of responsible autonomy for health care. Based on a comparative look across different sub‐fields in bioethics, the resulting model claims that physician responsibility (...) is essential to professional integrity, providing an alternative to other active trends emphasizing patient autonomy, such as Robert Veatch's contractual model. (shrink)

Contemporary American medical ethics was born during a period of social ferment, a key theme of which was the espousal of individual rights. Driven by complex cultural forces united in the effort to protect individuality and self-determined choices, an extrapolation from case law to rights of patients was accomplished under the philosophical auspices of ‘autonomy’. Autonomy has a complex history; arising in the modern period as the idea of self-governance, it received its most ambitious philosophical elaboration in Kant's moral philosophy. (...) In examining the Kantian construction, it is evident that neither his universal moral imperative nor his rigorous application of self-legislated ethical action can sustain our own notions of moral agency in a pragmatic, pluralistic society. But the Kantian position is useful in highlighting that self-governance is not equivalent to ‘autonomy’, and this distinction defines the limits of autonomy in the clinical setting. A critique of Engelhardt's idea of ‘principle of permission’ is used to illustrate autonomy's eclipse as a governing principle for medical ethics. (shrink)

The patient–physician relationship is of primary importance for medical ethics, but it also teaches broader lessons about ethics generally. This is particularly true for the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas whose ethics is grounded in the other who “faces” the subject and whose suffering provokes responsibility. Given the pragmatic, situational character of Levinasian ethics, the “face of the other” may be elucidated by an analogy with the “face of the patient.” To do so, I draw on examples from Martin Winckler’s fictional physician (...) narratives. In addition, I explore how the standpoint of the physician conceals a related but often unacknowledged dimension of care: the obligation to nurse. For both nurse and physician, one question encapsulates Levinas’ medical ethics: “What does the patient say?” Using this as my guiding question, I examine the context within which physician, nurse, and patient meet in order to highlight their shared vulnerability and the care relationship that binds them together. (shrink)

This edition of the journal includes, with an introduction and three commentaries, a recent joint statement from the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the Royal College of Nursing, on decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).1 The statement was produced in response both to a professional need to decide when attempting CPR is and is not ethically appropriate, or indeed lawful (especially in the light of incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law), and also (...) to public concern that such decisions have not always been made in concordance with the wishes of patients or people close to them. The guidelines it sets out reflect a broad consensus of current medicolegal views in the UK, include a variety of helpful and practical recommendations, and can be seen, in many respects, as a model of their kind. As a model of actual decision making however, they raise some problems. Model helps us understand the reality they represent by simplifying it, but in the process of simplification, aspects of the reality represented which do not fit in with the model may be left out or downplayed. Three such aspects identified by our commentators concern patient autonomy, quality of life judgments, and the role of families in decision making. In his commentary, Robin Gill argues that while “many of us cherish” the right to be properly informed before decisions about our treatment are made, such information “may become a burden for others when they are at their most vulnerable”. Being told about CPR, with the implication that a “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) order is at least possible, may provoke “angst about death” in these vulnerable patients. The guidelines state that a competent patient's wish not to discuss resuscitation should be respected. But they also state that …. (shrink)

This paper discusses one of the most famous paintings on medical themes: The Doctor by Sir Luke Fildes (Fig. 1), which exemplifies how an ideal type of doctoring is construed from reality and from the views and expectations of both the public and doctors themselves. A close reading of The Doctor elucidates three fundamental conflicts in medicine: the first is between statistical efficiency in accordance with scales of morbidity and mortality and the personal devotion that every sick child or suffering (...) individual wants to receive; the second is between the doctor-dominated market and the patient-dominated market; and the third is between influential and rich doctors (“consultants”) and practitioners of family medicine (GPs).1 Fig. 1 Sir Luke Fildes, “The Doctor”, oil on canvas, 1891. With permission from The Tate Gallery, London. (shrink)

Contrary to the common view, this paper suggests that the Hippocratic oath does not directly refer to the controversial subjects of euthanasia and abortion. We interpret the oath in the context of establishing trust in medicine through departure from Pantagruelism. Pantagruelism is coined after Rabelais' classic novel Gargantua and Pantagruel. His satire about a wonder herb, Pantagruelion, is actually a sophisticated model of anti-medicine in which absence of independent moral values and of properly conducted research fashion a flagrant over-medicalization of (...) human problems. Ultimately this undermines the therapeutic core of medicine itself. We contend that PAS is a case of such over-medicalization and that its institution creates medicophobia. This article does not express an opinion about euthanasia in general. Rather, we claim that physicians should learn from the oath and from Rabelais that they should keep their practice to medical care and not to exploit their expertise and social privileges for the sake of ulterior motives, even when their patients desire those goals. (shrink)

_Phenomenological insights into health issues relating to bodily self-experience, normality and deviance, self-alienation, and objectification._.

The structure, content, and orientation of the contemporary medical record inadequately reflect the appropriate influence of patients' rights and bioethics on health care. Most tellingly, the medical chart reveals a remarkable absence of attention to medical ethics, except in the case of crisis management. But medical ethics informs both crisis decision-making and virtually all clinical interventions. Indeed, clinical care embodies a complex array of choices influenced by individual and cultural values, themselves reflecting religious beliefs, personal histories, psychologies, and social mores. (...) But the typical medical chart, which records clinical descriptions, analyses, and rationales for treatment, rarely identifies or accounts for this value-laden dimension of care and thus both over-simplifies and distorts the depiction of a patient's illness and its treatment. To better reflect the complex moral domain of clinical care, and assist in organizing its complex structure, a systematic procedure is proposed here to evaluate the ethical status of every patient: As a routine part of the clinical evaluation, in a designated Ethical Concerns section of the medical record, an ?ethics work-uP? is designed to serve as a moral ?diagnostic? analogous to its scientific counterpart. Adapted to the needs of individual patients, such evaluations should identify ethical problems, coordinate related data, resources, and opinion, and define the rationale for choices made and actions pursued. In establishing improved integration of the ?epistemologies? of care and the ?ethics? of care, the goals of a more humane, patient-centered medicine may be better met. (shrink)

An autobiographical account is offered of how the medical study of self (immunology) became a chapter in the philosophical study of human agency (from Nietzsche and Thoreau to Freud by way of Wittgenstein). Whether viewed scientifically or philosophically, several themes converge on the intractable instability of any notion of selfhood—epistemological or moral. How this problematic motivated an extended analysis of selfhood refracts the psychology of the author and his pursuit of philosophy as self‐knowledge.