残疾歧视的危害:医疗错误与认识不公

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
D. Peña-Guzmán, J. Reynolds
{"title":"残疾歧视的危害:医疗错误与认识不公","authors":"D. Peña-Guzmán, J. Reynolds","doi":"10.1353/ken.2019.0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:This paper argues that epistemic errors rooted in group- or identity-based biases, especially those pertaining to disability, are undertheorized in the literature on medical error. After sketching dominant taxonomies of medical error, we turn to the field of social epistemology to understand the role that epistemic schemas play in contributing to medical errors that disproportionately affect patients from marginalized social groups. We examine the effects of this unequal distribution through a detailed case study of ableism. There are four primary mechanisms through which the epistemic schema of ableism distorts communication between nondisabled physicians and disabled patients: testimonial injustice, epistemic overconfidence, epistemic erasure, and epistemic derailing. Measures against epistemic injustices in general and against schema-based medical errors in particular are ultimately issues of justice that must be better addressed at all levels of health care practice.","PeriodicalId":46167,"journal":{"name":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","volume":"29 1","pages":"205 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/ken.2019.0023","citationCount":"46","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Harm of Ableism: Medical Error and Epistemic Injustice\",\"authors\":\"D. Peña-Guzmán, J. Reynolds\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ken.2019.0023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT:This paper argues that epistemic errors rooted in group- or identity-based biases, especially those pertaining to disability, are undertheorized in the literature on medical error. After sketching dominant taxonomies of medical error, we turn to the field of social epistemology to understand the role that epistemic schemas play in contributing to medical errors that disproportionately affect patients from marginalized social groups. We examine the effects of this unequal distribution through a detailed case study of ableism. There are four primary mechanisms through which the epistemic schema of ableism distorts communication between nondisabled physicians and disabled patients: testimonial injustice, epistemic overconfidence, epistemic erasure, and epistemic derailing. Measures against epistemic injustices in general and against schema-based medical errors in particular are ultimately issues of justice that must be better addressed at all levels of health care practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46167,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"205 - 242\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/ken.2019.0023\",\"citationCount\":\"46\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2019.0023\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2019.0023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 46

摘要

摘要:本文认为,基于群体或身份偏见的认知错误,特别是与残疾有关的认知错误,在医疗错误的文献中没有被理论化。在概述了医疗差错的主要分类之后,我们转向社会认识论领域,以了解认知图式在导致医疗差错方面所起的作用,这些医疗差错不成比例地影响着来自边缘社会群体的患者。我们通过对残疾歧视的详细案例研究来检验这种不平等分配的影响。残疾歧视的认知图式扭曲了非残疾医生和残疾患者之间的沟通,主要有四种机制:证言不公正、认知过度自信、认知抹杀和认知脱轨。针对一般认识上的不公正,特别是针对基于模式的医疗错误的措施,最终是必须在各级保健实践中更好地解决的正义问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Harm of Ableism: Medical Error and Epistemic Injustice
ABSTRACT:This paper argues that epistemic errors rooted in group- or identity-based biases, especially those pertaining to disability, are undertheorized in the literature on medical error. After sketching dominant taxonomies of medical error, we turn to the field of social epistemology to understand the role that epistemic schemas play in contributing to medical errors that disproportionately affect patients from marginalized social groups. We examine the effects of this unequal distribution through a detailed case study of ableism. There are four primary mechanisms through which the epistemic schema of ableism distorts communication between nondisabled physicians and disabled patients: testimonial injustice, epistemic overconfidence, epistemic erasure, and epistemic derailing. Measures against epistemic injustices in general and against schema-based medical errors in particular are ultimately issues of justice that must be better addressed at all levels of health care practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal offers a scholarly forum for diverse views on major issues in bioethics, such as analysis and critique of principlism, feminist perspectives in bioethics, the work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, active euthanasia, genetics, health care reform, and organ transplantation. Each issue includes "Scope Notes," an overview and extensive annotated bibliography on a specific topic in bioethics, and "Bioethics Inside the Beltway," a report written by a Washington insider updating bioethics activities on the federal level.
×
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