The whole person beneath the drapes: a philosophical reflection on human-centeredness in the operating room.

IF 2.4 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Saeid Amini Rarani
{"title":"The whole person beneath the drapes: a philosophical reflection on human-centeredness in the operating room.","authors":"Saeid Amini Rarani","doi":"10.1186/s13010-025-00202-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the highly technical and time-pressured environment of the operating room (OR), patients may risk becoming physically present yet experientially absent and ontologically overlooked. \"Experiential absence\" refers to the loss of the patient's subjectivity when their voice and awareness are silenced under anesthesia, while \"ontological absence\" refers to the erosion of their recognition as a person of inherent moral worth. Drapes, protocols, and clinical shorthand can unintentionally reinforce this absence. While such detachment supports surgical focus, it raises pressing ethical questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper undertakes a philosophical reflection drawing on René Descartes' Meditations and Carl Rogers' humanistic psychology. Primary texts from both authors are engaged to examine how Cartesian dualism has shaped depersonalizing tendencies in biomedicine, and how Rogers' principles of empathy, authenticity, and unconditional positive regard can reframe ethical care in surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three interrelated dimensions are identified. First, the paper distinguishes between necessary clinical objectivity and harmful detachment, arguing that the latter undermines ethical regard. Second, it reconceptualizes the anesthetized patient as morally present despite unconsciousness, emphasizing that vulnerability under anesthesia heightens the ethical duty of care. Third, it reframes the surgical team as a therapeutic environment, where interpersonal respect and psychological safety influence how patient dignity is upheld.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integrating Rogers' philosophy into the OR does not compromise technical precision but deepens it with moral clarity. By recognizing both the experiential silence and the ontological presence of the anesthetized patient, surgical teams can align technical excellence with ethical responsibility. This perspective expands patient-centered care into a more robust person-centered ethic, positioning surgery not only as a technical intervention but also as a profoundly moral encounter.</p>","PeriodicalId":56062,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","volume":"20 1","pages":"39"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12587664/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-025-00202-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the highly technical and time-pressured environment of the operating room (OR), patients may risk becoming physically present yet experientially absent and ontologically overlooked. "Experiential absence" refers to the loss of the patient's subjectivity when their voice and awareness are silenced under anesthesia, while "ontological absence" refers to the erosion of their recognition as a person of inherent moral worth. Drapes, protocols, and clinical shorthand can unintentionally reinforce this absence. While such detachment supports surgical focus, it raises pressing ethical questions.

Methods: This paper undertakes a philosophical reflection drawing on René Descartes' Meditations and Carl Rogers' humanistic psychology. Primary texts from both authors are engaged to examine how Cartesian dualism has shaped depersonalizing tendencies in biomedicine, and how Rogers' principles of empathy, authenticity, and unconditional positive regard can reframe ethical care in surgery.

Results: Three interrelated dimensions are identified. First, the paper distinguishes between necessary clinical objectivity and harmful detachment, arguing that the latter undermines ethical regard. Second, it reconceptualizes the anesthetized patient as morally present despite unconsciousness, emphasizing that vulnerability under anesthesia heightens the ethical duty of care. Third, it reframes the surgical team as a therapeutic environment, where interpersonal respect and psychological safety influence how patient dignity is upheld.

Conclusions: Integrating Rogers' philosophy into the OR does not compromise technical precision but deepens it with moral clarity. By recognizing both the experiential silence and the ontological presence of the anesthetized patient, surgical teams can align technical excellence with ethical responsibility. This perspective expands patient-centered care into a more robust person-centered ethic, positioning surgery not only as a technical intervention but also as a profoundly moral encounter.

窗帘下的整个人:手术室中以人为本的哲学反思。
背景:在高技术和时间压力的手术室(OR)环境中,患者可能会出现身体上存在但经验上缺席和本体论上被忽视的风险。“体验性缺席”是指在麻醉状态下,患者的声音和意识被沉默,主体性丧失;“本体性缺席”是指患者作为一个具有内在道德价值的人的认知被侵蚀。窗帘、治疗方案和临床速记会无意中强化这种缺失。虽然这种分离支持手术焦点,但它提出了紧迫的伦理问题。方法:借鉴笛卡尔的《沉思录》和罗杰斯的人本主义心理学进行哲学反思。两位作者的主要文本都致力于研究笛卡尔二元论如何塑造了生物医学中的去人格化趋势,以及罗杰斯的移情、真实性和无条件积极关注原则如何重新构建手术中的伦理关怀。结果:确定了三个相互关联的维度。首先,本文区分了必要的临床客观性和有害的超然,认为后者破坏了伦理考虑。其次,它重新定义了被麻醉的病人尽管无意识,但在道德上仍然存在,强调麻醉下的脆弱性提高了护理的道德责任。第三,它将外科团队重新定义为一个治疗环境,在这个环境中,人际尊重和心理安全影响着患者尊严的维护。结论:将罗杰斯的哲学融入手术室并不会影响技术的精确性,反而会加深道德的清晰度。通过认识到麻醉患者的经验沉默和本体论存在,手术团队可以将技术卓越与道德责任结合起来。这种观点将以病人为中心的护理扩展为一种更强大的以人为中心的伦理,将手术定位为不仅是一种技术干预,而且是一种深刻的道德遭遇。
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
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine considers articles on the philosophy of medicine and biology, and on ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses all aspects of the philosophy of medicine and biology, and the ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. It also considers papers at the intersection of medicine and humanities, including the history of medicine, that are relevant to contemporary philosophy of medicine and bioethics. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is the official publication of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center.
×
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
小红书