Whitelaw Sandy, Clark David
School of Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Glasgow, Dumfries, UK.
Palliat Care. 2019 Feb 20;12:1178224218819745. doi: 10.1177/1178224218819745. eCollection 2019.
Interest in the potential for public health and palliative care to work together is now widely established. Based on a mapping review of existing literature, we describe for the first time the ways in which public health has entered palliative care policy and practice and how this has been specifically articulated. We then go on to pursue analytical and critical lines of enquiry that are largely absent from the existing literature. We do this in three ways: (i) by considering why the link between public health and palliative care has become so ubiquitous within palliative care policy; (ii) by establishing how this has been constructed; and (iii) by exploring public health as a 'reference discipline' from which its 'secondary deployment' can become embedded another disciplinary field. From this, we develop a range of critical perspectives on the relationship between public health and palliative care by scrutinising its claims of utility and effectiveness and questioning the strength of the interdisciplinary interaction between the two disciplines. We see their relationship in a 'cross disciplinary' context which is still largely symbolic and tactical in nature. We conclude by considering the significance of these insights for policy and practice, with two possible scenarios. If the use of public health is essentially figurative and its resources are not unique, the particular and exclusive use of the term becomes insignificant. Progressive and effective policy and practice is possible, independent of any explicit public health label. If however public health is considered to have intrinsic and definable worth, we suggest that this currently asymmetrical association needs to be significantly developed with much higher levels of theoretical, practical and critical engagement between the two disciplines. Such work would result in more reflective and robust policy and practice.
公共卫生与姑息治疗协同合作的潜力如今已得到广泛认可。基于对现有文献的梳理综述,我们首次描述了公共卫生进入姑息治疗政策与实践的方式以及这种方式是如何具体阐述的。接着,我们继续开展现有文献中基本未涉及的分析性和批判性探究。我们通过三种方式来做到这一点:(i)思考公共卫生与姑息治疗之间的联系为何在姑息治疗政策中变得如此普遍;(ii)确定这种联系是如何构建的;(iii)将公共卫生视为一门“参考学科”,探讨其“二次应用”如何能融入另一个学科领域。由此,我们通过审视公共卫生与姑息治疗之间关系在效用和有效性方面的主张,并质疑这两个学科间跨学科互动的力度,对它们之间的关系形成了一系列批判性观点。我们在一个“跨学科”背景下审视它们的关系,这种背景在本质上很大程度上仍是象征性和策略性的。我们通过考虑这些见解对政策和实践的意义得出结论,有两种可能的情形。如果公共卫生的应用本质上是象征性的且其资源并非独一无二,那么该术语的特定和排他性使用就变得无关紧要了。不依赖任何明确的公共卫生标签,渐进且有效的政策和实践也是可能的。然而,如果认为公共卫生具有内在且可定义的价值,我们建议目前这种不对称的关联需要大力发展,两个学科之间需要有更高水平的理论、实践和批判性参与。这样的工作将带来更具反思性和稳健性的政策与实践。