Taking embodiment seriously in public policy and practice: adopting a procedural approach to health and welfare.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-04 DOI:10.1007/s40592-023-00183-x
Joseph T F Roberts
{"title":"Taking embodiment seriously in public policy and practice: adopting a procedural approach to health and welfare.","authors":"Joseph T F Roberts","doi":"10.1007/s40592-023-00183-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is a common refrain amongst phenomenologists, disability theorists, and feminist legal theorists that medical practice pays insufficient attention to people's embodiment. The complaint that we take insufficient account of people's embodiment isn't limited to the clinical interaction. It has also been directed at healthcare regulation and welfare policy. In this paper, I examine the arguments for taking embodiment seriously in both medical practice and welfare policy, concluding we have good reasons to take better account of people's embodiment. I then set out two challenges to taking embodiment seriously in public policy. First, given the amount of variation in how people are embodied, there is strong possibility that adjusting policy to benefit particular individuals based on an appreciation of their embodied experiences could be detrimental towards other individuals. The second challenge concerns how to ensure that people's testimony about their first-person embodied experience is subject to adequate scrutiny without this resulting in epistemic injustice. I argue that the solution to both of these challenges is to devise a just procedure for soliciting people's testimony and taking it into account in the policy development process. As such, I also provide an outline of what a just procedure should look like.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10754762/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-023-00183-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is a common refrain amongst phenomenologists, disability theorists, and feminist legal theorists that medical practice pays insufficient attention to people's embodiment. The complaint that we take insufficient account of people's embodiment isn't limited to the clinical interaction. It has also been directed at healthcare regulation and welfare policy. In this paper, I examine the arguments for taking embodiment seriously in both medical practice and welfare policy, concluding we have good reasons to take better account of people's embodiment. I then set out two challenges to taking embodiment seriously in public policy. First, given the amount of variation in how people are embodied, there is strong possibility that adjusting policy to benefit particular individuals based on an appreciation of their embodied experiences could be detrimental towards other individuals. The second challenge concerns how to ensure that people's testimony about their first-person embodied experience is subject to adequate scrutiny without this resulting in epistemic injustice. I argue that the solution to both of these challenges is to devise a just procedure for soliciting people's testimony and taking it into account in the policy development process. As such, I also provide an outline of what a just procedure should look like.

在公共政策和实践中认真体现:对健康和福利采取程序性方法。
现象学家、残疾理论家和女权主义法律理论家普遍认为,医疗实践对人的化身关注不足。抱怨我们没有充分考虑到人们的具体情况,这不仅限于临床互动。它还针对医疗监管和福利政策。在这篇论文中,我考察了在医疗实践和福利政策中认真对待化身的论点,得出的结论是我们有充分的理由更好地考虑人们的化身。然后,我提出了在公共政策中认真对待具体化的两个挑战。首先,考虑到人的具体体现方式存在很大差异,基于对特定个人具体经历的欣赏来调整政策以使其受益的可能性很大,这可能会对其他人不利。第二个挑战涉及如何确保人们对其第一人称体验的证词受到充分的审查,而不会导致认识上的不公正。我认为,解决这两个挑战的办法是制定一个公正的程序,征求人们的证词,并在政策制定过程中予以考虑。因此,我还概述了公正程序应该是什么样子。
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
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
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