Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3 (3):295-302 (2000)
One problematic aspect of the rationality of medical practice concerns the relation between expert knowledge and non-expert knowledge. In medical practice it is important to match medical knowledge with the self-knowledge of the individual patient. This paper tries to study the problem of such matching by describing a model for technological paradigms and comparing it with an ideal of technological rationality. The professionalised experts tend to base their decisions and actions mostly on medical knowledge while the rationality of medicine also involves just as important elements of the personal evaluation and knowledge of the patients. Since both types of knowledge are necessary for rational decisions, the gap between the expert and the non-expert has to be bridged in some way. A solution to the problem is suggested in terms of pluralism, with the patient as ultimate decision-maker.
|Keywords||competence decision medical practice professionalism rationality technological paradigm usefulness|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Questionable Gate-Keeping: Scientific Evidence for Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM): Response to Malcolm Parker. [REVIEW]Monika Clark-Grill - 2007 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4 (1):21-28.
Health-Care Needs and Shared Decision-Making in Priority-Setting.Erik Gustavsson & Lars Sandman - 2015 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18 (1):13-22.
Learning to Argue Like an Expert: The Role Oftopoiin Internal Medicine Residency.Diana Lin Awad Scrocco - 2014 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 3 (3):231-258.
Similar books and articles
Problems of Nomenclature and Classification in Medical Expert Systems.Peter Hucklenbroich - 1988 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 9 (2).
Model for Knowledge and Legal Expert Systems.Anja Oskamp - 1992 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (4):245-274.
Artificial Decision-Making and Artificial Ethics: A Management Concern. [REVIEW]Omar E. M. Khalil - 1993 - Journal of Business Ethics 12 (4):313 - 321.
Whom to Trust? Public Concerns, Late Modern Risks, and Expert Trustworthiness.Geert Munnichs - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):113-130.
What Kind of Expert Should a System Be?Paul E. Johnson - 1983 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (1):77-97.
The Significance of Prognosis for a Theory of Medical Practice.Claudia Wiesemann - 1998 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (3):253-261.
Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Weak Arguments.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
Cognitive Modeling and Representation of Knowledge in Ontological Engineering.Christine W. Chan - 2003 - Brain and Mind 4 (2):269-282.
.[author unknown] - unknown
Empathy and the Expert Witness.Jonathan Sinclair Carey - 1987 - Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics 8 (1):19-25.
Informed Consent in the Fields of Medical Technological Practice.Lotte Asveld - 2006 - Techne 10 (1):16-29.
Objective Bayesian Nets for Systems Modelling and Prognosis in Breast Cancer.Jon Williamson - manuscript
Added to index2010-08-31
Total downloads21 ( #232,747 of 2,154,167 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #397,226 of 2,154,167 )
How can I increase my downloads?