As health care embraces the tenets of evidence-based medicine it is important to ask questions about how evidence is produced and interpreted. This essay explores normative dimensions of evidence production, particularly around issues of setting the tolerable level of uncertainty of results. Four specific aspects are explored: what health care providers know about statistics, why alpha levels have been set at 0.05, the role of randomization in the generation of sufficient grounds of belief, and the role of observational studies. The (...) essay concludes with recommendations to acknowledge the value permeation of outcome measures and suggests that attention to reasoning and argument analysis can augment traditional evidence-based approaches in providing a robust critical approach to medical knowledge. (shrink)

The expressions ‘high quality care’ and ‘low quality care’ are cognitive and linguistic artefacts that help to structure people’s lives and thinking; for example, moves are now afoot internationally to pay bonuses to health professionals for delivering high quality care. United States programmes, most conspicuously, are assuming that high quality care can be validly distinguished from low quality care, and incentivised through bonuses. This distinction is always at least implicit, for high quality care has no meaning without low quality care. (...) Through a ‘deconstructionist reading,’ this article discusses limitations of categorising the quality of care as either high or low. The limitations of this ‘binary opposition’ can include a lack of defining attributes; vagueness and fuzziness at the ‘boundaries’ between high quality care and low quality care; concealment of quality as a continuum; and use of the binary opposition to effect social order and control. Health policy implications of our analysis are discussed. Drawing upon the general medical services contract in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach to overcoming the oversimplification and imprecision that categorisation tends to produce. (shrink)

This essay explores the role of informal logicand its application in the context of currentdebates regarding evidence-based medicine. This aim is achieved through a discussion ofthe goals and objectives of evidence-basedmedicine and a review of the criticisms raisedagainst evidence-based medicine. Thecontributions to informal logic by StephenToulmin and Douglas Walton are explicated andtheir relevance for evidence-based medicine isdiscussed in relation to a common clinicalscenario: hypertension management. This essayconcludes with a discussion on the relationshipbetween clinical reasoning, rationality, andevidence. It is argued that (...) informal logic hasthe virtue of bringing explicitness to the roleof evidence in clinical reasoning, and bringssensitivity to understanding the role ofdialogical context in the need for evidence inclinical decision making. (shrink)

Contesting that a debate on evidence-based health care has taken place, this article charts three paths to the future: continuing avoidance of debate by proponents of evidence-based medicine (EBM); conflict, which the EBM movement courts and critics have espoused, and dialogue. The last portal allows for integration, which would end the disagreement between EBM and its critics and make a debate unnecessary. In search of integration, I sketch a bridge whose construction requires not compromise but a win- win approach. The (...) bridge is a medicine of meaning (MOM). Consolidating multiple pillars of evidence to unify questions that are not necessarily the same for protagonists and critics of EBM, a MOM contends that the purpose or meaning of medicine is always healing and helping, and each party finds meaning in medicine by contributing to this common purpose in its own distinctive way. (shrink)