Suppr超能文献

医疗保健中的认知不公正:哲学分析

Epistemic injustice in healthcare: a philosophial analysis.

作者信息

Carel Havi, Kidd Ian James

机构信息

Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Bristol, BS6 6JL, UK,

出版信息

Med Health Care Philos. 2014 Nov;17(4):529-40. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9560-2.

Abstract

In this paper we argue that ill persons are particularly vulnerable to epistemic injustice in the sense articulated by Fricker (Epistemic injustice. Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007). Ill persons are vulnerable to testimonial injustice through the presumptive attribution of characteristics like cognitive unreliability and emotional instability that downgrade the credibility of their testimonies. Ill persons are also vulnerable to hermeneutical injustice because many aspects of the experience of illness are difficult to understand and communicate and this often owes to gaps in collective hermeneutical resources. We then argue that epistemic injustice arises in part owing to the epistemic privilege enjoyed by the practitioners and institutions of contemporary healthcare services--the former owing to their training, expertise, and third-person psychology, and the latter owing to their implicit privileging of certain styles of articulating and evidencing testimonies in ways that marginalise ill persons. We suggest that a phenomenological toolkit may be part of an effort to ameliorate epistemic injustice.

摘要

在本文中,我们认为,患病之人特别容易遭受弗里克(《认知不公:权力与认知伦理》,牛津大学出版社,牛津,2007年)所阐述意义上的认知不公。患病之人容易遭受证供不公,原因在于人们会假定他们具有诸如认知不可靠和情绪不稳定等特征,从而降低其证供的可信度。患病之人还容易遭受诠释不公,因为疾病体验的许多方面难以理解和传达,这往往归因于集体诠释资源的不足。然后我们认为,认知不公的出现部分归因于当代医疗服务的从业者和机构所享有的认知特权——前者因其培训、专业知识和第三人称心理,后者因其以边缘化患病之人的方式对某些表达和证明证供的风格进行隐性偏袒。我们建议,现象学工具包可能是改善认知不公努力的一部分。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验