Literature DB >> 7658172

Incommensurability: its implications for the patient/physician relation.

R M Veatch1, W E Stempsey.   

Abstract

Scientific authority and physician authority are both challenged by Thomas Kuhn's concept of incommensurability. If competing "paradigms" or "world views" cannot rationally be compared, we have no means to judge the truth of any particular view. However, the notion of local or partial incommensurability might provide a framework for understanding the implication of contemporary philosophy of science for medicine. We distinguish four steps in the process of translating medical science into clinical decisions: the doing of the science, the appropriation of the scientific findings by the clinician, the transfer of the findings from the clinician to the patient, and the choice of a treatment regimen. Incommensurability can play a role in each stage. There is at least some theory- and value-ladenness in science that is dependent on the world view of those who construct the scientific theories. Clinicians who must use the results of scientific research will inevitably interpret the research from the standpoint of their own world view. There may be further incommensurability when these data are communicated to the patient. Finally, clinician and patient values must come into play in any decision about choice of treatment. No stage of medical research or practice is value-free. This position does not imply relativism; some scientific accounts are better than others. However, the challenge of the incommensurabilists shows that further analysis is needed to establish how particular accounts are better or worse.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Bioethics and Professional Ethics; Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Philosophical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7658172     DOI: 10.1093/jmp/20.3.253

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Philos        ISSN: 0360-5310


  3 in total

Review 1.  Methods in epidemiology and public health: does practice match theory?

Authors:  D L Weed
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Beyond black box epidemiology.

Authors:  D L Weed
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 3.  Impact of biomedical research on African Americans.

Authors:  R W Harrison
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.798

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.