Relational care and epistemic injustice.

Rupal Shah, Sanjiv Ahluwalia, John Spicer
{"title":"Relational care and epistemic injustice.","authors":"Rupal Shah, Sanjiv Ahluwalia, John Spicer","doi":"10.1017/S1463423623000555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The philosophical underpinnings of primary care have been examined from several perspectives in recent years. In two previous articles, we have argued that a relational view of autonomy is better matched to the primary care setting than others, and that view is mainly formed from the descriptors of its practice. Here we develop that analysis further, linking it to other relevant theory: the experience of human suffering and epistemic injustice. We argue that relational care is fundamental to ameliorating epistemic injustice and that relationships are integral to ethical practice, rather than being distinct. We propose that personalised care as described in the NHS Long Term Plan is not possible without addressing epistemic injustice and therefore without reconsidering our existing normative ethical frameworks.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"24 ","pages":"e62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594641/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423623000555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The philosophical underpinnings of primary care have been examined from several perspectives in recent years. In two previous articles, we have argued that a relational view of autonomy is better matched to the primary care setting than others, and that view is mainly formed from the descriptors of its practice. Here we develop that analysis further, linking it to other relevant theory: the experience of human suffering and epistemic injustice. We argue that relational care is fundamental to ameliorating epistemic injustice and that relationships are integral to ethical practice, rather than being distinct. We propose that personalised care as described in the NHS Long Term Plan is not possible without addressing epistemic injustice and therefore without reconsidering our existing normative ethical frameworks.

关系关怀和认识上的不公正。
近年来,从几个角度对初级保健的哲学基础进行了研究。在之前的两篇文章中,我们认为,自主的关系观比其他观点更适合初级保健环境,而这种观点主要是由其实践的描述符形成的。在这里,我们进一步发展了这一分析,并将其与其他相关理论联系起来:人类苦难的经历和认识上的不公正。我们认为,关系关怀是改善认识不公正的根本,关系是道德实践的组成部分,而不是独特的。我们建议,如果不解决认识上的不公正,因此不重新考虑我们现有的规范性道德框架,就不可能实现NHS长期计划中描述的个性化护理。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信