Brummett argues that P2+ is necessary because it acknowledges the metaphysical claims ignored in P2’s approach in addressing parental refusal for treatment in certain pediatric cases that cl...

Jeffrey Bishop’s The Anticipatory Corpse demonstrates how death is present in and cloaked by contemporary practices of end-of-life care. A key to Bishop’s argument is that for modern medicine the cadaver has become epistemologically normative and that a metaphysics shorn of formal and final causes now shapes contemporary healthcare practices. The essays of this symposium laud and interrogate Bishop’s argument in three ways. First, they raise critical methodological challenges from the perspectives of human rights, Charles Taylor’s concept of social imaginaries, (...) and economics. Second, they demonstrate the analytical power of his argument by detailing how it might be extended to additional issues beyond simply end-of-life care and how it might be brought into conversation with sociology. Third, they engage the constructive turn Bishop takes at the end of the book. Bishop himself also updates readers on the reception of The Anticipatory Corpse, as well as the way his thinking has evolved over the past 5 years since its publication. He also engages the questions, challenges, and openings provided by our authors. (shrink)

The essays in this issue of JMP are devoted to critical engagement of my book, The Anticipatory Corpse. The essays, for the most part, accept the main thrust of my critique of medicine. The main thrust of the criticism is whether the scope of the critique is too totalizing, and whether the proposed remedy is sufficient. I greatly appreciate these interventions because they allow me this occasion to respond and clarify, and to even further extend the argument of my book. (...) In this response essay, I maintain that the regnant social imaginary of medicine is the regnant social imaginary of our time. It is grounded in a specific ontotheology: where ontology is a power ontology; where material is malleable to the open-ended organization of power and dependent only on working out the efficient mechanisms of its enactment; where ethically it is oriented only to the immanent telos of utility maximization in the short run, and ultimately to some posthuman future in the long run. This ontotheology originates in the anticipatory corpse and is ordered toward some god-like posthuman being. The entire ontotheology finds enactment through the political economy of neoliberalism. This social imaginary constantly works to insulate itself from other social imaginaries through the use of its institutional power, through marginalization, circumscription, or absorption. The modern social imaginary of neoliberal societies marginalizes and politically isolates other social imaginaries, or transforms them into something acceptable to the neoliberal imaginary. Yet, these other social imaginaries could influence the larger social imaginary in novel ways, sometimes through withdrawal and sometimes through challenges. These other practices—again, usually practices ordered according to different ontological and teleological purposes—might serve as a source of renewal and transformation, but only if the practitioners of these other social imaginaries understand the ontotheological powers that they are up against. (shrink)