Michel Foucault's analysis of "the birth of the clinic" describes the genesis of a unified discourse that, in retrospect, has shaped western medicine for two centuries. However, in looking prospectively toward a 21st century medicine, Foucault's analysis is necessary but not sufficient. To better critically address medicine and medical education in the era of simulation, we could draw on frameworks developed by futurists such as Jean Baudrillard. Foucault's analysis does not account for contemporary, complex developments of the clinical gaze as (...) the gaze is distributed across practitioners in increasing use of sophisticated, representational diagnostic imaging. Further, Foucault's antihumanist rhetoric sometimes strays into the antihumane, and this is disturbing for those who support the development of patient-centered medicine. Yet we are increasingly teaching aspects of medicine, such as communication, in simulated learning environments in which complex reality is absent, perhaps inadvertently creating an "inhumanity" in medical education. (shrink)

This essay places Foucault's work into a philosophical context, recognizing that Foucault is difficult to place and demonstrates that Foucault remains in the Kantian tradition of philosophy, even if he sits at the margins of that tradition. For Kant, the forms of intuition—space and time—are the a priori conditions of the possibility of human experience and knowledge. For Foucault, the a priori conditions are political space and historical time. Foucault sees political space as central to understanding both the subject and (...) objects of medicine, psychiatry, and the social sciences. Through this analysis one can see that medicine's metaphysics is a metaphysics of efficient causation, where medicine's objects are subjected to mechanisms of efficient control. (shrink)

This essay explores the claim that bioethics has become a mode of biopolitics. It seeks to illuminate one of the myriad of ways that bioethics joins other institutionalized discursive practices in the task of producing, organizing, and managing the bodies—of policing and controlling populations—in order to empower larger institutional agents. The focus of this analysis is the contemporary practice of transnational biomedical research. The analysis is catalyzed by the enormous transformation in the political economy of transnational research that has occurred (...) over the past three decades and the accompanying increase in the numbers of human bodies now subjected to research. This essay uses the work of Michel Foucault, particularly his notion of docile bodies, to analyze these changes. Two loci from the bioethics literature are explored—one treating research in the United States and one treating research in developing countries. In the latter, we see a novel dynamic of the new biopolitics: the ways in which bioethics helps to create docile political bodies that will police themselves and who will, in turn, facilitate the production of docile human bodies for research. (shrink)

By establishing the sciences of life while, at the same time, forming a certain self-knowledge, the human being altered itself as a living being by taking on the character of a rational subject acquiring the power to act on itself, changing its living conditions and its own life …. [There is a] kinship between the discourse on limit-experience, when it was a matter of the subject transforming itself, and the discourse on the transformation of the subject itself through the construction (...) of a knowledge. (Foucault, 2000, 296)1. (shrink)