Critically Appraising Pragmatist Critiques of Evidence-Based Medicine: Is EBM Defensible on Pragmatist Grounds?

Significant contributions to debates in the philosophy of evidence-based medicine (EBM) have come from a variety of different philosophical quarters, yet mainstream discourse in the field has been largely devoid of contributions from scholars working in the pragmatist tradition. This is a particularly conspicuous omission, given pragmatism's commitment to the melioristic view that philosophy both can, and should, be about the business of concretely bettering the human estate. Two exceptions to this oversight come from Brian Walsh and Maya Goldenberg. Unfortunately, in both cases, the misapplication of pragmatist thinking leads to the mistaken view that EBM is committed to some form of pernicious objectivism. This article aims to revise these pragmatist critiques in order to bring them more consistently in line with pragmatist values and commitments. Doing so shows that EBM is defensible on pragmatist grounds against objectivist attacks.

Reconsidering the Moralization of Health: Practices Versus Concepts, and What We Can Learn from Evidence-based Research.

This article aims to do two things. First, it argues that moralization of health occurs not only at the practical level of individual healthcare choices and health states, but also at the conceptual level of health itself. This is most evident in cases where the concept of health is presumed to possess the property of "overridingness" when compared to competing values and norms, that is, when it is treated as taking precedence over other values and norms it may come into conflict with. Second, the article makes a case for being critically skeptical of specific deployments of the concept of health when it has been moralized in this way. In such cases, what typically results is that some other personal value/norm, or set of values/norms, held by the individual is treated as intrinsically at odds with the concept of health, which is presumed, uncritically, to be superior, often because it is taken to be free-standing and self-justifying. Yet, a growing body of evidence-based research suggests that the role played by dimensions of personal meaningfulness in the quality of individuals' overall health is quite underappreciated. It is useful to think of these dimensions of personal meaning and significance as representing the individual's values. Thus, taking these data more seriously ought to lead to a reevaluation of the moralization of health at the conceptual level. In the first place, it is not obvious that if the concept of health runs afoul of other values/norms held by an individual, the latter should automatically yield. In the second place, they suggest that other values/norms held by an individual are not necessarily intrinsically opposed to the concept of health, but in fact may go a good distance in support of it.

Does evidence-based health care have room for the self?

Evidence-based health care (EBHC) has consistently been attacked by opponents for being perniciously reductive. Although these attacks are overwhelmingly framed as critiques of evidence-based medicine, they standardly target the research wing of EBHC upon which evidence-based medicine is dependent, and increasingly extend to adjacent health care disciplines, such as nursing. One of the most persistent forms this line of attack has taken is the allegation that EBHC, with its emphasis on the hierarchy of evidence, grounded in the use of randomized controlled trials, and the clinical guidelines developed on their basis, fails to recognize the patient as the complex self she is, treating her instead as merely a quantifiable, medical-scientific object. By reducing the patient to certain quantifiable dimensions, the patient as self is allegedly 'erased'. In short, the complaint is that an evidence-based approach to health care has no room for the self. Contrary to this persistently held view, it is argued here that EBHC does have room for the self. Review of these critiques suggests they can be categorized into two groups: soft critiques and strong critiques. Soft critiques tend to take a more measured tone grounded in empirical concerns about the dangers of an evidence-based approach to health care, whereas strong critiques tend to make sweeping claims grounded in theoretical commitments to anti-foundationalist philosophical frameworks. While both soft and strong critiques ultimately fail to make the case that EBHC has no room for the self, the empirical concerns of soft critiques nevertheless present a challenge EBHC advocates would do well to take seriously and address.