Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23 (4):577-587 (2020)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Trust relations in the health services have changed from asymmetrical paternalism to symmetrical autonomy-based participation, according to a common account. The promises of personalized medicine emphasizing empowerment of the individual through active participation in managing her health, disease and well-being, is characteristic of symmetrical trust. In the influential Kantian account of autonomy, active participation in management of own health is not only an opportunity, but an obligation. Personalized medicine is made possible by the digitalization of medicine with an ensuing increased tailoring of diagnostics, treatment and prevention to the individual. The ideal is to increase wellness by minimizing the layer of interpretation and translation between relevant health information and the patient or user. Arguably, this opens for a new level of autonomy through increased participation in treatment and prevention, and by that, increased empowerment of the individual. However, the empirical realities reveal a more complicated landscape disturbed by information ‘noise’ and involving a number of complementary areas of expertise and technologies, hiding the source and logic of data interpretation. This has lead to calls for a return to a mild form of paternalism, allowing expertise coaching of patients and even withholding information, with patients escaping responsibility through blind or lazy trust. This is morally unacceptable, according to Kant’s ideal of enlightenment, as we have a duty to take responsibility by trusting others reflexively, even as patients. Realizing the promises of personalized medicine requires a system of institutional controls of information and diagnostics, accessible for non-specialists, supported by medical expertise that can function as the accountable gate-keeper taking moral responsibility required for an active, reflexive trust.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s11019-020-09974-z |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.Ulrich Beck, Mark Ritter & Jennifer Brown - 1993 - Environmental Values 2 (4):367-368.
View all 21 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Knowledge Repositories. In Digital Knowledge We Trust.Tsjalling Swierstra & Sophia Efstathiou - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23 (4):543-547.
Similar books and articles
From Art to Science: A New Epistemological Status for Medicine? On Expectations Regarding Personalized Medicine.Urban Wiesing - 2018 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (4):457-466.
Causal Network Accounts Of Ill-Being: Depression & Digital Well-Being.Nick Byrd - 2020 - In Christopher Burr & Luciano Floridi (eds.), Ethics of Digital Well-being: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Springer International Publishing. pp. 221-245.
Between Hype and Hope: What is Really at Stake with Personalized Medicine?Camille Abettan - 2016 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 19 (3):423-430.
A P5 Cancer Medicine Approach: Why Personalized Medicine Cannot Ignore Psychology.Gabriella Pravettoni & Alessandra Gorini - 2011 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17 (4):594-596.
Trust in Medicine.Philip J. Nickel & Lily Frank - 2020 - In Judith Simon (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Trust and Philosophy.
Trust in the Virtual/Physical Interworld.Annamaria Carusi - 2011 - In Charles Ess & May Thorseth (eds.), Trust and Virtual Worlds. Peter Lang.
Personalized Genetic Medicine: Present Reality, Future Prospects.Donna Dickenson - 2013 - In Sheldon Krimsky & Jeremy Gruber (eds.), Biotechnology in Our Lives. Skyhorse Publishing.
Information Technology and Moral Philosophy.Jeroen van den Hoven & John Weckert (eds.) - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
Making the Technological Trustworthy.S. D. Noam Cook - 2010 - Knowledge, Technology & Policy 23 (3):455-459.
Perspectives on Achieving Institutional Trust in Personalized Medicine.Gabrielle Samuel & Sandi Dheensa - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (4):39-41.
Personalized Medicine and Genome-Based Treatments: Why Personalized Medicine ≠ Individualized Treatments.S. G. Nicholls, B. J. Wilson, D. Castle, H. Etchegary & J. C. Carroll - 2014 - Clinical Ethics 9 (4):135-144.
Of Nanochips and Persons: Toward an Ethics of Diagnostic Technology in Personalized Medicine. [REVIEW]Sophie Pellé & Vanessa Nurock - 2012 - NanoEthics 6 (3):155-165.
The Ethics of Smart Pills and Self-Acting Devices: Autonomy, Truth-Telling, and Trust at the Dawn of Digital Medicine.Craig M. Klugman, Laura B. Dunn, Jack Schwartz & I. Glenn Cohen - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (9):38-47.
Defining Trust and E-Trust: Old Theories and New Problems.Mariarosaria Taddeo - 2009 - International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI) Official Publication of the Information Resources Management Association 5 (2):23-35.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2020-09-05
Total views
6 ( #1,128,502 of 2,497,798 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,370 of 2,497,798 )
2020-09-05
Total views
6 ( #1,128,502 of 2,497,798 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,370 of 2,497,798 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads