Foucault at the bedside: a critical analysis of empowering a healthy lifestyle

Since quite a few years, philosophy is heading towards the bedside of the patient: the practice of philosophy has stepped out of its ivory tower, it seems, to deal with empirical or practical questions. Apart from the advantages, we should keep in mind the importance of a critical analysis of medical or clinical practice as such. If ethics partakes the clinical stage, it runs the risk only to discuss the how question and to forget the more fundamental what or why questions: what are we doing exactly and why is it good for? Starting from the principle of the empowerment of the patient, we will demonstrate how the discourse on empowerment in health care seems to forget a profound reflection upon this principle as such. By rehearsing some basics from the governmentality theory of Michel Foucault and the actualization of it by Nicolas Rose, we will argue how philosophical investigation in medical‐ethical evolutions such as empowerment of the patient is still needed to understand what is really going on in today's clinical practice.     

Patient‐centred care through a broader lens: Supporting patient autonomy alongside moral deliberation

Patient‐centred care (PCC) is an essential component of high‐quality healthcare and shared decision‐making is its cornerstone. Yet, integrating the principles of PCC into healthcare practice is not always straightforward and shared decision‐making can be complicated and ethically demanding. While ethicists and academics routinely debate moral aspects of clinical care, such discussion among clinicians is less overt. In this paper, we use Emmanuel et al.’s deliberative model to provide a practical framework for considering ethical aspects of PCC and shared decision‐making. The model encourages us to appreciate PCC through a broader lens and consider patient autonomy alongside other moral obligations such as justice and the equitable distribution of finite resources. The model can be used by healthcare providers, patients and caregivers to facilitate dialogue and moral deliberation regarding the merit of their preferences and values; in this way, individualised care can be delivered without compromising other important ethical obligations.     

Modern medicine and the one‐size‐fits‐all approach: A clinician's comment to Alexandra Pârvan's “Mind Electric” article

As a clinician, I can easily agree with the author that a person's own reality of being healthy is independent of physical evidence or clinical categories and that this perspective should be considered to improve clinical care. However, I cannot follow the assumptions about the nature and working of modern medicine and psychiatry as typically using “black box” and one‐size‐fits‐all treatments in daily practice. I outline several working contexts of doctors where this criticism does only marginally apply or not at all and wonder whether the author might wish, if possible at all from a philosophical viewpoint, to differentiate her concepts with regard to these different contexts. In addition, I think that ill health in the field of psychiatry might have to be dealt with differently than physical ill health.     

Evidence‐based medicine: A cornerstone for clinical care but not for quality improvement

Quality improvement (QI) as a clinical improvement science has been criticized for failing to deliver broad patient outcome improvement and for being a top‐down regulatory and compliance construct. These critics have argued that the focus of QI should be on increasing adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and, as a result, should be consolidated into research structures with the science of evidence‐based medicine (EBM) at the helm. We argue that EBM often overestimates the role of knowledge as the root cause of quality problems and focuses almost exclusively on the effectiveness of care while often neglecting the domains of safety, efficiency, patient‐centredness, and equity. Successfully addressing quality problems requires a much broader, systems‐based view of health‐care delivery. Although essential to clinical decision‐making and practice, EBM cannot act as the cornerstone of health system improvement.     

Reconciling evidence‐based medicine and patient‐centred care: defining evidence‐based inputs to patient‐centred decisions

Evidence‐based and patient‐centred health care movements have each enhanced the discussion of how health care might best be delivered, yet the two have evolved separately and, in some views, remain at odds with each other. No clear model has emerged to enable practitioners to capitalize on the advantages of each so actual practice often becomes, to varying degrees, an undefined mishmash of each. When faced with clinical uncertainty, it becomes easy for practitioners to rely on formulas for care developed explicitly by expert panels, or on the tacit ones developed from experience or habit. Either way, these tendencies towards ‘cookbook’ medicine undermine the view of patients as unique particulars, and diminish what might be considered patient‐centred care. The sequence in which evidence is applied in the care process, however, is critical for developing a model of care that is both evidence based and patient centred. This notion derives from a paradigm for knowledge delivery and patient care developed over decades by Dr. Lawrence Weed. Weed's vision enables us to view evidence‐based and person‐centred medicine as wholly complementary, using computer tools to more fully and reliably exploit the vast body of collective knowledge available to define patients’ uniqueness and identify the options to guide patients. The transparency of the approach to knowledge delivery facilitates meaningful practitioner–patient dialogue in determining the appropriate course of action. Such a model for knowledge delivery and care is essential for integrating evidence‐based and patient‐centred approaches.     

Understanding the experience of inpatient rehabilitation: insights into patient‐centred care from patients and family members

The aim of the study was describe the experiences, needs and preferences of recent inpatients of a rehabilitation centre, and the needs of their families. Data were collected in four focus groups, two with patients (n = 13) who had recently completed inpatient rehabilitation following an illness, injury or elective surgery, and two with family members (n = 11). During the focus groups, two researchers facilitated discussion on any topic that participants considered important to the experience of inpatient rehabilitation; participants were encouraged to describe their care, needs and preferences. The focus group discussions were audio‐taped and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were hand recorded. Data were analysed and collated into themes. Six key themes emerged. Participants wanted: interactions with friendly, empathetic staff; regular contact with senior staff and all staff to introduce themselves by name and profession; timely communication of accurate information; and rehabilitation services seven days a week. The physical environment had both positive and negative effects on patient well‐being. Patients with complex or atypical circumstances required special attention to ensure their needs were met. In conclusion, patients and families identified six important issues that need to be considered during inpatient rehabilitation.     

Ethical persuasion: the rhetoric of communication in critical care

This article reviews the ethics of rhetoric in critical care. Rational appeals in critical care fail to move patients or surrogates to a better course of action. Appeals to their emotions are considered illegitimate because they may preclude autonomous choice. This article discusses whether it is always unethical to change someone's beliefs, whether persuasive communication is inherently harmful and whether it leaves no space for voluntariness. To answer these questions, the article engages with Aristotle's work, Rhetoric. In considering whether there is a place for emotionally charged messages in a patient–provider relationship, the article intends to delineate the nature of this relationship and describe the duties this relationship implies. The article presents examples of persuasive communication used in critical care and discusses whether providers may have a duty to persuade patients. This duty is supported by the fact that doctors often influence patients' and families' choices by framing presented options. Doctors should assume responsibility in recognizing these personal and contextual influences that may influence the medical choices of their patients. They should attempt to modify these contextual factors and biases in a way that would assist patients and families in reaching the desired outcomes. The opening sections surveyed a number of definitions found in relevant literature and outlined some of the concepts included in the proposed definition. This definition helps to distinguish instances of persuasion from cases of manipulation, coercion and deception. Considering the fact that patients and families often make irrational decisions and the fact that doctors inadvertently influence their choices, the article suggested that persuasion can be a positive tool in medical communication. When patients or families clearly do not understand the risks or make decisions that contradict their long‐term goals, persuasion can be used as a positive influence.