IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v58y2004i4p727-738.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical medicine and the quest for certainty

Author

Listed:
  • Gillett, Grant

Abstract

Orthodox medicine works in a scientific framework which often discounts knowledge arising outside biomedical models and the statistical means by which these are tested. Alternative medicine cannot meet these standards because it is holistic and individual in its orientations toward the understanding and treatment of human illness. But in fact the dominant model also has problems with surgery and other areas such as family practice as sub-disciplines where individualised caring solutions are important. These prominently include areas in which wider social and economic concerns directly impinge on health care so that we need a more liberal attitude to medical knowledge and discovery. I suggest that this wider conception is more in keeping with the Hippocratic ethos as a whole and with the idea of a healing praxis. Because our aim as doctors and health care professionals is to help people, and our knowledge is directed towards furthering this end, medicine is a practical science not able to stand apart and build theories in detached contemplation from within the ivory tower of the academy. However the practicality of medicine and the assurance needed to poison people or inflict grievous bodily harm in an effort to help them often puts a premium on certainties in our thinking about clinical medicine before the scientific basis for such certainty has been established. Therefore, hand in hand with the professional calling that is health care, goes the need for a certain style of belief in what one is doing and its ultimate rightness. This leads to an almost unique profile for medicine among the sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Gillett, Grant, 2004. "Clinical medicine and the quest for certainty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 727-738, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:4:p:727-738
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00224-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Landsman, Gail H., 2006. "What evidence, whose evidence?: Physical therapy in New York State's clinical practice guideline and in the lives of mothers of disabled children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2670-2680, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:4:p:727-738. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.