BMC Medical Ethics 17 (1):1-12 (2016)

Authors
Giovanni De Grandis
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Abstract
The idea of personalised medicine (PM) has gathered momentum recently, attracting funding and generating hopes as well as scepticism. As PM gives rise to differing interpretations, there have been several attempts to clarify the concept. In an influential paper published in this journal, Schleidgen and colleagues have proposed a precise and narrow definition of PM on the basis of a systematic literature review. Given that their conclusion is at odds with those of other recent attempts to understand PM, we consider whether their systematic review gives them an edge over competing interpretations. We have found some methodological weaknesses and questionable assumptions in Schleidgen and colleagues’ attempt to provide a more specific definition of PM. Our perplexities concern the lack of criteria for assessing the epistemic strength of the definitions that they consider, as well as the logical principles used to extract a more precise definition, the narrowness of the pool from which they have drawn their empirical data, and finally their overlooking the fact that definitions depend on the context of use. We are also worried that their ethical assumption that only patients’ interests are legitimate is too simplistic and drives all other stakeholders’ interests—including those that are justifiable—underground, thus compromising any hope of a transparent and fair negotiation among a plurality of actors and interests. As an alternative to the shortcomings of attempting a semantic disciplining of the concept we propose a pragmatic approach. Rather than considering PM to be a scientific concept in need of precise demarcation, we look at it as an open and negotiable concept used in a variety of contexts including at the level of orienting research goals and policy objectives. We believe that since PM is still more an ideal than an achieved reality, a plurality of visions is to be expected and we need to pay attention to the people, reasons and interests behind these alternative conceptions. In other words, the logic and politics of PM cannot be disentangled and disagreements need to be tackled addressing the normative and strategic conflicts behind them.
Keywords Personalised medicine  conceptual confusion  research policy  healthcare policy  politics of naming  systematic literature review  methodology  medical ethics  contextual meaning
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0122-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Disciplinary Capture and Epistemological Obstacles to Interdisciplinary Research: Lessons From Central African Conservation Disputes.Evelyn Brister - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56:82-91.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Knowledge Repositories. In Digital Knowledge We Trust.Tsjalling Swierstra & Sophia Efstathiou - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23 (4):543-547.
Neither From Words, nor From Visions: Understanding P-Medicine From Innovative Treatments.Maël Lemoine - 2017 - Lato Sensu, Revue de la Société de Philosophie des Sciences 4 (2).

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

How to Write a Systematic Review of Reasons.Daniel Strech & Neema Sofaer - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (2):121-126.
Medical Profiling and Online Medicine: The Ethics of ‘Personalised Healthcare’ in a Consumer Age.[author unknown] - 2012 - Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft Und Ethik 16 (1):441-446.
Systematic Reviews of Empirical Bioethics.D. Strech, M. Synofzik & G. Marckmann - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (6):472-477.
Steps Towards a Theory of Medical Practice.Peter Hucklenbroich - 1998 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (3):215-228.
Philosophy of Medicine in China (1930–1980).Qiu Renzong - 1982 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 3 (1):35-73.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-06-10

Total views
262 ( #33,765 of 2,427,423 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
35 ( #23,565 of 2,427,423 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes