Evidentialism and Patient Testimony.

IF 1.9 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Elisa Reverman
{"title":"Evidentialism and Patient Testimony.","authors":"Elisa Reverman","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhag004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, I argue that patients' testimonial knowledge is assessed with a default evidentialist approach. I primarily support this claim by drawing from work on physicians' accounts of assessing the trustworthiness of patients' testimony. Furthermore, I explicate a three-tiered evidence-ranking approach within these physician accounts and detail how it resembles existing hierarchical evidence-ranking frameworks in medicine. I then discuss the role that aperspectival objectivity plays in this evidentialist approach and highlight some tensions that emerge. Next, I identify some practical, epistemic, and ethical consequences of said evidentialist approach and end on potential strategies for mitigating the potential negative consequences. The account I detail ultimately reveals much of the epistemic complexity surrounding patients' testimonial knowledge as a kind of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-21","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/jhag004","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 this article, I argue that patients' testimonial knowledge is assessed with a default evidentialist approach. I primarily support this claim by drawing from work on physicians' accounts of assessing the trustworthiness of patients' testimony. Furthermore, I explicate a three-tiered evidence-ranking approach within these physician accounts and detail how it resembles existing hierarchical evidence-ranking frameworks in medicine. I then discuss the role that aperspectival objectivity plays in this evidentialist approach and highlight some tensions that emerge. Next, I identify some practical, epistemic, and ethical consequences of said evidentialist approach and end on potential strategies for mitigating the potential negative consequences. The account I detail ultimately reveals much of the epistemic complexity surrounding patients' testimonial knowledge as a kind of evidence.

证据主义和病人证词。
在这篇文章中,我认为患者的证词知识是用默认的证据主义方法评估的。我主要通过对医生评估病人证词可信度的研究来支持这一说法。此外,我在这些医生帐户中解释了一个三层证据排序方法,并详细说明了它与医学中现有的分层证据排序框架的相似之处。然后,我讨论了视角客观性在这种证据主义方法中所起的作用,并强调了出现的一些紧张关系。接下来,我确定了上述证据主义方法的一些实践、认知和伦理后果,并结束了减轻潜在负面后果的潜在策略。我详细的描述最终揭示了围绕着作为一种证据的病人见证知识的认知复杂性。
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
小红书