University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Nurs Philos. 2010 Jul;11(3):178-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2010.00439.x.
Several authors have commented on my reductionist account of spirituality in nursing, describing it variously as naïve, disrespectful, demeaning, paternalistic, arrogant, reifying, indicative of a closed mind, akin to positivism, a procrustean bed, a perpetuation of fraud, a matter of faith, an attempt to secure ideological power, and a perspective that puritanically forbids interesting philosophical topics. In responding to this list of felonies and misdemeanours, I try to justify my excesses by arguing that the critics have not really understood what reductionism involves; that rejecting reductionism is not the same as providing arguments against it; that the ethical dilemmas allegedly associated with reductionist views are endemic to health care; that 'reifying' is what believers in the spiritual realm do; and that the closed minds belong to those who dismiss reductionist science without having studied its achievements.
几位作者对我在护理精神性方面的还原论观点发表了评论，将其描述为幼稚、不尊重、贬低、家长式作风、傲慢、具体化、思维封闭、类似于实证主义、削足适履、欺诈的延续、信仰问题、意识形态权力的企图，以及一种清教徒式地禁止有趣哲学话题的观点。在回应这些罪行和轻罪的清单时，我试图通过以下论点来为自己的过分行为辩护：批评者并没有真正理解还原论所涉及的内容；反对还原论并不等同于提供反对它的论据；与还原论观点相关的伦理困境是医疗保健中固有的；“具体化”是信仰精神领域的人所做的；而那些未经研究还原论科学的成就就将其摒弃的人，他们的思维才是封闭的。
