On the notion of (medical) invasiveness.
The relation between the notions of (medical) invasiveness and (actual or potential) harm has not been systematically discussed nor theoretically grounded, despite its importance to clinical-ethical practice. This paper aims to clarify the notion of invasiveness beyond the traditional notion of invasiveness as breaking skin or inserting mechanical objects into the body. The traditional notion of invasiveness is challenged by counterexamples. Three approaches to the notion of disorder applied here are: deviation from what is common; deviation from what is considered ideal; and disruption of self-organization. Assuming that more extreme measures are related to more harm, all three approaches to the notion of disorder suggest that invasiveness is proportional if not identical to harm, and show no clear relation to the traditional notion of invasiveness. In conclusion, the notion of invasiveness may best be eliminated from medical terminology, replacing it with a detailed understanding of the notion of harm.
Rudnick
Abraham
A
Departments of Psychiatry and Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. arudnic2@uwo.ca
D026688:Bioethical Issues; D006801:Humans; D010686:Philosophy, Medical; D013812:Therapeutics / Q000941:ethics*
Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2006 Dec;49(6):380-3
17323269
Isr Med Assoc J. 2002 Feb;4(2):83-5
11875997
Curr Opin Urol. 2007 Mar;17(2):114-9
17285021
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2006;15(6):378-83
17190663
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Mar;102(3):536-8
17335447
J Med Philos. 2000 Oct;25(5):569-80
11035543