Science, humanism, judgement, ethics: person-centered medicine as an emergent model of modern clinical practice

University of Milan, Italy.
Folia medica 08/2013; 55(1):5-24.
Source: PubMed


The Medical University of Plovdiv (MUP) has as its motto 'Committed to humanity". But what does humanity in modern medicine mean? Is it possible to practise a form of medicine that is without humanity? In the current article, it is argued that modern medicine is increasingly being practised in a de-personalised fashion, where the patient is understood not as a unique human individual, a person, but rather as a subject or an object and more in the manner of a complex biological machine. Medicine has, it is contended, become distracted from its duty to care, comfort and console as well as to ameliorate, attenuate and cure and that the rapid development of medicine's scientific knowledge is, paradoxically, principally causative. Signal occurrences in the 'patient as a person' movement are reviewed, together with the emergence of the evidence-based medicine (EBM) and patient-centered care (PCC) movements. The characteristics of a model of medicine evolving in response to medicine's current deficiencies--person-centered healthcare (PCH)--are noted and described. In seeking to apply science with humanism, via clinical judgement, within an ethical framework, it is contended that PCH will prove to be far more responsive to the needs of the individual patient and his/her personal circumstances than current models of practice, so that neither a reductive anatomico-pathological, disease-centric model of illness (EBM), nor an aggressive patient-directed, consumerist form of care (PCC) is allowed continued dominance within modern healthcare systems. In conclusion, it is argued that PCH will enable affordable advances in biomedicine and technology to be delivered to patients within a humanistic framework of clinical practice that recognises the patient as a person and which takes full account of his/her stories, values, preferences, goals, aspirations, fears, worries, hopes, cultural context and which responds to his/her psychological, emotional, spiritual and social necessities in addition to his/her physical needs. MUP, in assimilating such arguments and introducing person-centered medicine teaching into the University, is engaged in a notable and laudable initiative which will function as a salutary example to other medical schools within Europe and elsewhere.

Download full-text


Available from: Andrew Miles, Sep 29, 2015
7 Reads
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 08/2011; 17(4):531-6. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01713.x · 1.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The dominant model of disease today is biomedical, and it leaves no room within tis framework for the social, psychological, and behavioral dimensions of illness. A biopsychosocial model is proposed that provides a blueprint for research, a framework for teaching, and a design for action in the real world of health care.
    Science 05/1977; 196(4286):129-36. DOI:10.1126/science.847460 · 33.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The proposed practice of "evidence-based medicine," which calls for careful clinical judgment in evaluating the "best available evidence," should be differentiated from the special collection of data regarded as suitable evidence. Although the proposed practice does not seem new, the new collection of "best available" information has major constraints for the care of individual patients. Derived almost exclusively from randomized trials and meta-analyses, the data do not include many types of treatments or patients seen in clinical practice; and the results show comparative efficacy of treatment for an "average" randomized patient, not for pertinent subgroups formed by such cogent clinical features as severity of symptoms, illness, co-morbidity, and other clinical nuances. The intention-to-treat analyses do not reflect important post-randomization events leading to altered treatment; and the results seldom provide suitable background data when therapy is given prophylactically rather than remedially, or when therapeutic advantages are equivocal. Randomized trial information is also seldom available for issues in etiology, diagnosis, and prognosis, and for clinical decisions that depend on pathophysiologic changes, psychosocial factors and support, personal preferences of patients, and strategies for giving comfort and reassurance. The laudable goal of making clinical decisions based on evidence can be impaired by the restricted quality and scope of what is collected as "best available evidence." The authoritative aura given to the collection, however, may lead to major abuses that produce inappropriate guidelines or doctrinaire dogmas for clinical practice.
    The American Journal of Medicine 01/1998; 103(6):529-35. DOI:10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00244-1 · 5.00 Impact Factor
Show more