A commentary on Murray et al. (2007) 'No exit? Intellectual integrity under the regime of "evidence" and "best practices"'

Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, avenue des Pins, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (Impact Factor: 1.58). 09/2007; 13(4):524-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00877.x
Source: PubMed
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This essay asks how we might best elaborate an ethics of authentic practice. Will we be able to agree on a set of shared terms through which ethical practice will be understood? How will we define ethics and the subject's relation to authoritative structures of power and knowledge? We begin by further clarifying our critique of evidence-based medicine (EBM), reflecting on the intimate relation between theory and practice. We challenge the charge that our position amounts to no more than 'subjectivism' and 'antiauthoritarian' theory. We argue that an ethical practice ought to question the authority of EBM without falling into the trap of dogmatic antiauthoritarianism. In this, we take up the work of Hannah Arendt, who offers terms to help understand our difficult political relation to authority in an authentic ethical practice. We continue with a discussion of Michel Foucault's use of 'free speech' or parrhesia, which he adopts from Ancient Greek philosophy. Foucault demonstrates that authentic ethical practice demands that we 'speak truth to power.' We conclude with a consideration of recent biotechnologies, and suggest that these biomedical practices force us to re-evaluate our theoretical understanding of the ethical subject. We believe that we are at a crucial juncture: we must develop an ethics of authentic practice that will be commensurable with new and emergent biomedical subjectivities.
    Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 11/2008; 14(5):682-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00974.x · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 08/2007; 13(4):481 - 503. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00923.x · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Kant taught that, 'Where we find . . . illusions and fallacies . . . , there seems to be required a . . . code of mental legislation . . . founded upon the nature of reason and the objects of its exercise . . . which no fallacy will be able to withstand or escape from . . . ' I address, critically, the Flexnerian and EBM conceptions of scientific medicine and Groopman's ideas about errors of reasoning in the practice of medicine; I underscore the need for theory of medicine, founded on reason and governing cognition about and in the practice of medicine; and I sketch the dawn of rationality in medicine.
    Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 12/2009; 15(6):960-3. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01222.x · 1.58 Impact Factor