Online research in philosophy

Pellegrino has argued that end-of-life decisions should be based upon the physician's assessment of the effectiveness of the treatment and the patient's assessment of its benefits and burdens. This would seem to imply that conditions for medical futility could be met either if there were a judgment of ineffectiveness, or if the patient were in a state in which he or she were incapable of a subjective judgment of the benefits and burdens of the treatment. I argue that a theory of futility according to Pellegrino would deny that latter but would permit some cases of the former. I call this the circumspect view. I show that Pellegrino would adopt the circumspect view because he would see the medical futility debate in the context of a system of medical ethics based firmly upon a philosophy of medicine. The circumspect view is challenged by those who would deny that one can distinguish objective from subjective medical judgments. I defend the circumspect view on the basis of a previously neglected aspect of the philosophy of medicine -- an examination of varieties of medical judgment. I then offer some practical applications of this theory in clinical practice.

In spite of the seminal work A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice, the debate on the task and goals of philosophy of medicine still continues. From an European perspective it is argued that the main topics dealt with by Pellegrino and Thomasma are still particularly relevant to medical practice as a healing practice, while expressing the need for a philosophy of medicine. Medical practice is a discursive practice which is highly influenced by other discursive practices like science, law and economics. Philosophical analysis of those influences is needed to discern their effect on the goals of medicine and on the ways in which the self-image of man may be changed. The nature of medical practice and discourse itself makes it necessary to include different philosophical disciplines, like philosophy of science, of law, ethics, and epistemology. Possible scenario's of euthanasia and the human genome project in the USA and Europe are used to exemplify how philosopy of medicine can contribute to a realistic understanding of the problems which are related to the goals of medicine and health care.

Thomasma and Pellegrino''s [3] focus on the healing relationship as the way to give medical ethics a philosophical foundation contains a number of difficulties. Most importantly, their approach focuses philosophical analysis on an idealized view of the healing relationship in which the ideal of health is seen as an uncontroversial norm in the individual case. medical ethics is then characterized as an intrinsic part of the medical act itself. Philosophical inquiry seems limited to a description of the practice of medicine in which ethical norms are embodied. Insufficient attention to methodology leaves unclear how this vision is to be achieved in philosophical reflection.

A premise which seems to be preponderate in the philosophy of medical practice developed by Pellegrino and Thomasma is the medical prescription to save life whenever possible. This premise is confronted with a polemical vitalism and examined in the light of some reading principles derived from G. Canguilhem's philosophy of the life-sciences. It is argued that the primarity of life in the account given by Pellegrino and Thomasma of the foundations of medical practice is closely related to biological concepts of life. This relation is shown to be problematic. The biological concept results in an ontology of the living body as the condition of possibility of medical practice, thus linking up this practice with an uncriticized biological value and finality.

The programmatic thrust of Thomasma and Pellegrino [5] is clarified and underscored and is interpreted as an attempt to introduce a fixed point into the ethical dimension of medicine by specifying some regulative principles for the medical profession. Two important features of this type of enterprise are noted: on the one hand, it may lead the profession to distinguish between technically identical actions on the basis of the normative principles it produces, thus excluding some morally permissible actions as duties constitutive of the art. It is argued that the formulation of the grounds for this ethic given by Thomasma and Pellegrino is insufficient. In order to speak to the clinical situation, medical ethics must not be based on merely the living human body alone, but on the patientqua person.

Edmund D. Pellegrino and David C. Thomasma analyze the virtues that are especially relevant to the practice of good medicine. Their account of the virtues and medicine is complemented by Alasdair MacIntyre’s recent analysis of human development and the acquisition of the moral and intellectual virtues. These two accounts contribute toward analyzing the historical constitution of social practices and relationships in medicine. In particular, the moral and intellectual virtues characteristic of good medicine are acquired and exercised within those healing relationships featured in Pellegrino’s and Thomasma’s phenomenology of medicine. Examining their account of medical practice in light of MacIntyre’s more recent work suggests, however, that their theory of the good of the patient and their understanding of the relation of virtue to altruism and self-interest stand in need of further development.

Pellegrino's philosophy of medicine is explored in categories such as the motivation in constructing a philosophy of medicine, the method, the starting point of the doctor-patient relationship, negotiation about values in this relationship, the goal of the relationship, the moral basis of medicine, and additional concerns in the relationship (concerns such as gatekeeping, philosophical anthropology, axiology, philosophy of the body, and the general disjunction between science and morals). A critique of this philosophy is presented in the following areas: methodology, relation to ontology and sociology, the dynamic of individual and social concerns, and the new social condition of medicine. Finally, some suggestions for the future revitalization of philosophy of medicine are made based on Pellegrino's ideas. The focus throughout is on the moral basis and moral consequences of the philosophy of medicine, and not on other important themes. Keywords: doctor-patient relationship, goal of medicine, medical ethics, philosophical method, philosophy of medicine, philosophy of the body, values in medicine CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

Modern medicine faces fundamental challenges that various approaches to the philosophy of medicine have tried to address. One of these approaches is based on the ancient concept of phronesis. This paper investigates whether this concept can be used as a moral basis for the challenges facing modern medicine and, in particular, analyses phronesis as it is applied in the works of Pellegrino and Thomasma. It scrutinises some difficulties with a phronesis-based theory, specifically, how it presupposes a moral community of professionals. It is argued that Pellegrino and Thomasma's concept of phronesis corresponds to a Hippocratic concept of t�chn�, and that this latter concept seems to address many of the challenging issues Pellegrino and Thomasma also address. Thus, if modern medicine is to find its philosophical model in ancient concepts, it appears that the Hippocratic t�chn� is closer to the ancient concept of medicine than the Aristotelian phronesis, and that it might avoid many of the pitfalls of a phronesis-based approach.

The article offers an approach to inquiry about, the foundation of medical ethics by addressing three areas of conceptual presupposition basic to medical ethical theory. First, medical ethics must presuppose a view about the nature of medicine. it is argued that the view required by a cogent medical morality entails that medicine be seen both as a healing relationship and as a practical art. Three ways in which medicine inherently involves values and valuation are presented as important, i.e., in being aimed at the good of health, in being a cognitive art evaluating towards that good, and as a manifestation of a virtuous disposition concerning that good. Finally, a value ontology drawn from these considerations is seen as necessarily underlying medical ethics. A set of three such basic values are promoted as crucial: the value of health; the value of the individual patient; and the value of altruism that mediates the class of potential patients.

This commentary, while sympathetic to Thomasma and Pellegrino [15], raises three sets of questions concerning the adequacy of their view of medicine as a foundation for medical ethical decision-making. The first set of questions concerns the account of the nature of medicine presented by Thomasma and Pellegrino. It is argued that the account is not clearly univocal and that even the most important description offered requires further clarification. Questioned, secondly, is the reasoning used by Thomasma and Pellegrino to propel their movement from establishing an evaluative component in medicine to asserting an ethical dimension to medical judgment. It is argued that the authors equivocate in their presentation between the medical and moral uses of value terms. Finally, the role of the living body as a foundation for medical ethics is questioned, both in terms of the normative force such a ground can generate, and in terms of the range of duties to which this foundation must commit the profession.