Macnaughton R J
University of Glasgow Department of General Practice, Woodside Health Centre, UK.
J Eval Clin Pract. 1998 May;4(2):89-92.
Widespread acceptance of the neologism 'evidence-based medicine' (EBM) has had the consequences of obscuring what evidence really is, and of eroding the importance of judgement in clinical situations. In this essay I seek to correct this lack of balance in the view of clinical encounters as portrayed by EBM. A better understanding of what evidence is can be obtained by looking beyond medicine to the way in which scientists and detectives view evidence. In both spheres, the importance of judgement is emphasized, even if it is a technical type of judgement. Clinicians also employ a technical kind of judgement, similar to that in science and detective work, when assessing the evidence relating to the truth of a diagnosis for an individual patient; but judgements relating to the ongoing care and treatment of that patient are based on what Aristotle calls phronesis or 'practical wisdom'.
“循证医学”(EBM)这一新语被广泛接受,导致了对证据本质的模糊认识,并削弱了临床情境中判断力的重要性。在本文中,我试图纠正循证医学所描绘的临床诊疗观点中这种失衡的状况。通过超越医学范畴,审视科学家和侦探看待证据的方式,我们能更好地理解证据的本质。在这两个领域,判断力的重要性都得到了强调,即便这是一种专业性的判断。临床医生在评估个体患者诊断真实性的相关证据时,也运用一种类似科学和侦探工作中的专业性判断;但与该患者持续护理和治疗相关的判断则基于亚里士多德所说的实践智慧或“实践明智”。