Last year saw the 20th anniversary edition of JECP, and in the introduction to the philosophy section of that landmark edition, we posed the question: apart from ethics, what is the role of philosophy ‘at the bedside’? The purpose of this question was not to downplay the significance of ethics to clinical practice. Rather, we raised it as part of a broader argument to the effect that ethical questions – about what we should do in any given situation – are (...) embedded within whole understandings of the situation, inseparable from our beliefs about what is the case, what it is that we feel we can claim to know, as well as the meaning we ascribe to different aspects of the situation or to our perception of it. Philosophy concerns fundamental questions: it is a discipline requiring us to examine the underlying assumptions we bring with us to our thinking about practical problems. Traditional academic philosophers divide their discipline into distinct areas that typically include logic: questions about meaning, truth and validity; ontology: questions about the nature of reality, what exists; epistemology: concerning knowledge; and ethics: how we should live and practice, the nature of value. Any credible attempt to analyse clinical reasoning will require us to think carefully about these types of question and the relationships between them, as they influence our thinking about specific situations and problems. So, the answers to the question we posed, about the role of philosophy at the bedside, are numerous and diverse, and that diversity is illustrated in the contributions to this thematic edition. (shrink)

Rationale, aims and objectives: Bioethics and professionalism are standard subjects in medical training programmes, and these curricula reflect particular representations of meaning and practice. It is important that these curricula cohere with the actual concerns of practicing clinicians so that students are prepared for real-world practice. We aimed to identify ethical and professional concerns that do not appear to be adequately addressed in standard curricula by comparing ethics curricula with themes that emerged from a qualitative study of medical practitioners. Method: (...) Curriculum analysis: Thirty-two prominent ethics and professionalism curricula were identified through a database search and were analysed thematically. Qualitative study: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 medical practitioners. Participants were invited to reflect upon their perceptions of the ways in which values matter in their practices and their educational experiences. The themes emerging from the two studies were compared and contrasted. Results: While representations of meaning and value in ethics and professionalism curricula overlap with the preoccupations of practicing clinicians, there are significant aspects of ‘real-world’ clinical practice that are largely ignored. These fell into two broad domains: ‘sociological’ concerns about enculturation, bureaucracy, intra-professional relationships, and public perceptions of medicine; and epistemic concerns about making good decisions, balancing different kinds of knowledge, and practising within the bounds of professional protocols. Conclusions: Our findings support the view that philosophy and sociology should be included in medical school and specialty training curricula. Curricula should be reframed to introduce students to habits of thought that recognize the need for critical reflection on the social processes in which they are embedded, and on the philosophical assumptions that underpin their practice. (shrink)

Health services internationally struggle to ensure health care is “person-centered” (or similar). In part, this is because there are many interpretations of “person-centered care” (and near synonyms), some of which seem unrealistic for some patients or situations and obscure the intrinsic value of patients’ experiences of health care delivery. The general concern behind calls for person-centered care is an ethical one: Patients should be “treated as persons.” We made novel use of insights from the capabilities approach to characterize person-centered care (...) as care that recognizes and cultivates the capabilities associated with the concept of persons. This characterization unifies key features from previous characterisations and can render person-centered care applicable to diverse patients and situations. By tying person-centered care to intrinsically valuable capability outcomes, it incorporates a requirement for responsiveness to individuals and explains why person-centered care is required independently of any contribution it may make to health gain. (shrink)

Health services internationally struggle to ensure health care is “person-centered” (or similar). In part, this is because there are many interpretations of “person-centered care” (and near synonyms), some of which seem unrealistic for some patients or situations and obscure the intrinsic value of patients’ experiences of health care delivery. The general concern behind calls for person-centered care is an ethical one: Patients should be “treated as persons.” We made novel use of insights from the capabilities approach to characterize person-centered care (...) as care that recognizes and cultivates the capabilities associated with the concept of persons. This characterization unifies key features from previous characterisations and can render person-centered care applicable to diverse patients and situations. By tying person-centered care to intrinsically valuable capability outcomes, it incorporates a requirement for responsiveness to individuals and explains why person-centered care is required independently of any contribution it may make to health gain. (shrink)

The ideas and terminology of person-centred care have been part of health discourse for a very long time. Arguments that in healthcare one treats the whole person, not her/his component parts, date back at least to antiquity and the need to treat the patient as a person is articulated persuasively by clinical authors in the early twentieth century. Yet it is only in recent years that we have seen a growing consensus in health policy and practice literature that PCC, and (...) associated ideas including patient expertise, co-production and shared decision-making, are not simply “fine ideals” or “ethical add-ons” to sound scientific clinical practice, but rather they represent indispensable components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. The underlying conviction of this volume - one belief that, despite their differences, unites all of its contributors - is that PCC should not become the latest “revolutionary” concept to be “operationalised” before being “conceptualised”. It is imperative that we develop an open and inclusive dialogue about what we do and do not mean by “person-centred” to inform our attempts to implement PCC. (shrink)

These are exciting times for the defenders of Person-Centred Medicine(PCM). A recent editorial of the International Journal of Person-Centred medicine celebrates the new interest policy-makers are taking in PCM, but worries that: ‘the nomenclature of “person-centred medicine” risks the accusation that such a term represents a further rhetorical addition to the already rhetorically overburdened nature of health services.’ The worries are indeed justified. Practitioners struggling to do their jobs in the resource-constrained environments of contemporary health services may well react cynically (...) to the latest linguistic innovation, especially if it seems, like its predecessors, to combine the blindingly obvious with the ‘revolutionary’. With reference to the case studies of ‘quality theory’ in management studies and Evidence-based medicine, the paper argues that initially promising ideas are compromised when required to meet the agendas of policy-makers looking for a quick fix to what are in fact deep, structural problems in the delivery of health services. We must resist such moves if we are to preserve the intellectual and moral integrity of PCM as a critical perspective on medical practice, and to develop ideas that are actually helpful to practitioners and the users of health services. (shrink)

Values based practice (VBP) is a radical view of the place of values in medicine which develops from a philosophical analysis of values, illness and the role of ethical principles. It denies two attractive and traditional but misguided views of medicine: that diagnosis is a merely factual matter and that the values that should guide treatment and management can be codified in principles. But, in the work of KWM (Bill) Fulford, it goes further in the form of a radical liberal (...) view: that the idea of an antecedently good outcome should be replaced by that of a right process. That however leads to a dilemma as to whether it can account for its own normative status. Given that difficulty, why might one adopt the radical version? I sketch a possible motive drawing on Rorty’s rejection of authoritarianism which replaces objectivity with solidarity as the aim of judgement. But I argue that, nevertheless, this does not justify the rejection of the more modest particularist version of VBP. (shrink)

Discussions of diagnosis in mental illness are still beset by the suspicion that ‘value judgements’ are in some special sense ‘subjective’. The history of the debate about the reality of mental illness has seen a divide between those who accept that diagnosis is ‘value-laden’ and therefore accept a relativist/subjectivist account of mental illness, and those who feel the need to deny the value-laden nature of diagnosis to defend the reality of mental illness. More nuanced analyses note that all medical diagnosis (...) is arguably value-laden & this does not imply that medical conditions are unreal. All judgement requires a subject, but it does not follow that it is ‘subjective’ in any sense implying ontological relativity. The implications are substantial: either all medical judgement is relative or realism about value is true. To justify our claims in diagnosis, we need to discuss and defend our value-judgements. We must reject ‘scientism’ for an openly value-laden account of human functioning. Medical epistemology requires value-realism. The contentious nature of the value-judgements in the case of mental illness should not mislead us into concluding they are relative. (shrink)