This article addresses the question of what it is that visual depictions of illness portray, particularly images executed by or on behalf of people who have suffered serious illness. It takes up two lines of inquiry, both to do with the work that such pictures might perform. On the one hand, as works of art, there are questions about the form of signification in visual representations of this kind. On the other, as works of illness, there are issues concerning the (...) role of image-making for sufferers bearing witness to their situation. The article examines the issue of what it is to look at pictures of bodies scarred by treatment for serious disease, and follows this into questions about what it is possible and necessary to show in order to render illness experience tangible. By examining, as exemplars, two particular images of sufferers, it is argued that such portrayals work not just through making visible certain objects for scrutiny, but by figuratively instantiating persons so as to produce a `vision of the non-visual'. In this way picturing illness finds its place in what might be called a politics of care. (shrink)

Socrates (in the Meno) denied that virtues like courage could be taught, whereas Protagoras defended this claim. Compassion is discussed below in this context; it is distinguished from related, but different, moral qualities, and the role of imagination is emphasised. 'Sympathy's and role-modelling views of compassion's acquisition are criticised. Compassion can indeed be taught, but neither by the example of a few, isolated physicians nor by creation of Departments of Compassion. In replying to one standard objection to teaching compassion, it (...) is emphasised that scientific competence and compassion aren't mutually exclusive. (shrink)