Health science, natural science, and clinical knowledge

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (2):147-164 (1989)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The epistemological status of health science, natural science, and clinical knowledge is explored. It is shown that ‘health science’, a term increasingly used in association with the clinical knowledge of the therapies, nursing, and other health occupations, is not fully a science in the sense of the natural sciences. It is rather a hybrid which relates applications of natural science, behavioral science, and the humanities to problems in health. The same may be said of clinical knowledge which entails, as essentials, humanistic considerations involving the personal concerns of the patient, in addition to the more evident external aspects of diagnosis and treatment. The recent introduction of the term ‘health science’ reflects scientism in its approach to health issues. It also reflects confusion about the nature of clinical knowledge. Keywords: health science, clinical knowledge, natural science, behavioral science, humanism CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,932

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Complexity and the health care professions.William E. Doll Jr & Donna Trueit - 2010 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (4):841-848.
Family medicine as a social science.Barry Hoffmaster - 1981 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6 (4):387-410.
The GEM Model of Health: Parts 1-4.Patrick Daly - 2019 - European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 3 (7):421-442.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-19

Downloads
31 (#503,596)

6 months
11 (#339,306)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?