In this article, I defend luck at the expense of risk. Or, more precisely, I try to make a distinction that gives both concepts fair treatment. I start by making it clear that luck stands in opposition to control and not to causation. Both luck and risk are related to causal uncertainty. But it is warranted to talk about risk only when the uncertainty involved is brought under control, as it is in some familiar forms of fair gambling such as (...) dicing and roulette. Life is however not a fair gamble. We rarely have the kind of control over the preconditions of life that we have over the preconditions of say dicing. Luck therefore has profound influence on our lives and our health. This means that the standard conception of responsibility - that is, that we stand responsible only for consequences that we control - breaks down far more often than what is usually acknowledged. I therefore end the article by arguing that the standard conception of responsibility ought to be supplemented with a different conception that I have called "responsibility because of social involvement.". (shrink)

Stethoscopes, x-rays and other medical technologies are two-edged swords. They make medical treatment and diagnosis more accurate and effective, but do at the same time reveal our perceptual inadequacy. By transcending our senses, these technologies reveal that we can be seriously diseased without experiencing any symptoms at all. This situation has changed our attitude towards our relations and ourselves. The situation can be analysed using Jürgen Habermas’ conception of systems colonisation of the lifeworld. Medical technologies colonise our life world. They (...) change the way we think and act. They make us all accept that we can become patients almost any minute, even if we feel perfectly healthy. Sense transcending technologies turn us all into proto-patient. (shrink)

Supported by Ian Hacking’s concept of “intervention,” and Charles Taylor’s concept of “intentionality,” this article argues that doubting is acting, and that doubting is therefore subject to the same demands of responsibility as any other action. The argument is developed by using medical practice as a test-case. The central suggestion is that the demand of acting responsibly limits doubt in medicine. The article focuses on two such limitations to doubt. Firstly, the article argues that it is irresponsible to doubt that (...) our actions can harm other people. Secondly, the article argues that it is irresponsible not to strive for coherence between our utterances of doubt and our other actions. Incoherence here can cause “cultural impoverishment.” In a larger context this article also argues that medicine can enrich our epistemology, because medical knowledge displays important traits of knowledge that are downplayed in traditional epistemology derived from mathematics and physics. In particular, medicine makes it possible to get the relation between ethics and epistemology into sharper focus. The endpoint in medical epistemology is “responsible action,” and not certainty in and of itself. (shrink)