Pellegrino and Thomasma's Anatomy of Clinical Judgments Revisited.

IF 1.9 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Michael Trimble, Pat Croskerry
{"title":"Pellegrino and Thomasma's Anatomy of Clinical Judgments Revisited.","authors":"Michael Trimble, Pat Croskerry","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhaf029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1981, Edmund Pellegrino and David Thomasma published A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice. In this work, they situated the process of clinical judgment in the clinical encounter between an individual doctor and their patient. The encounter revolves around three questions: What can be wrong? What can be done? And what should be done for this patient? They analyzed the complete process of clinical reasoning involving both technical and ethical aspects. Pellegrino and Thomasma's subsequent work focused more on professionalism and ethics, while more recent analysis of clinical decision-making has been in the realm of psychology rather than along philosophical lines, particularly in the use of dual-process theory. Here we seek to review Pellegrino and Thomasma's analysis and to reintegrate the technical and ethical aspects of clinical reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhaf029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1981, Edmund Pellegrino and David Thomasma published A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice. In this work, they situated the process of clinical judgment in the clinical encounter between an individual doctor and their patient. The encounter revolves around three questions: What can be wrong? What can be done? And what should be done for this patient? They analyzed the complete process of clinical reasoning involving both technical and ethical aspects. Pellegrino and Thomasma's subsequent work focused more on professionalism and ethics, while more recent analysis of clinical decision-making has been in the realm of psychology rather than along philosophical lines, particularly in the use of dual-process theory. Here we seek to review Pellegrino and Thomasma's analysis and to reintegrate the technical and ethical aspects of clinical reasoning.

重新审视Pellegrino和Thomasma的临床判断解剖。
1981年,Edmund Pellegrino和David Thomasma出版了《医学实践的哲学基础》。在这项工作中,他们将临床判断的过程置于医生和病人之间的临床接触中。这次会面围绕着三个问题展开:哪里出了问题?我们能做些什么呢?对于这个病人应该做些什么呢?他们分析了涉及技术和伦理两个方面的临床推理的完整过程。Pellegrino和Thomasma随后的工作更多地关注专业精神和道德,而最近对临床决策的分析已经在心理学领域而不是沿着哲学路线进行,特别是在双过程理论的使用上。在这里,我们试图回顾Pellegrino和Thomasma的分析,并重新整合临床推理的技术和伦理方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信