"Evaluating normative epistemic frameworks in medicine: EBM and casuistic medicine".
Since its inception in the early 1990s, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become the dominant epistemic framework for Western medical practice. However, in light of powerful criticisms against EBM, alternatives such as casuistic medicine have been gaining support in both the medical and philosophical community. In the absence of empirical evidence in support of the claim that EBM improves patient outcomes, and in light of considerations that it is unlikely that such evidence will be forthcoming, another standard is needed to assess EBM against its alternatives. In this paper, I propose a set of criteria for this purpose based on Helen Longino's criteria for assessing the objectivity of a knowledge productive community. I then apply these criteria to assess EBM against a casuistic framework for medical knowledge. I argue that EBM's strict adherence to a hierarchical organization of knowledge can reasonably be expected to block it from fulfilling a high level of objectivity. A casuistic framework, on the other hand, because it emphasizes critical evaluation in conjunction with the flexibility of a case-based approach, could be expected to better facilitate a more optimal epistemic community.
Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Emily
E
Bingeman
D000066491:Clinical Decision-Making; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D019359:Knowledge; D010686:Philosophy, Medical
casuistic medicine; epistemology; evidence-based medicine; knowledge; objectivity; philosophy of medicine