Bodies of evidence: The 'Excited Delirium Syndrome' and the epistemology of cause-of-death inquiry.

"Excited Delirium Syndrome" (ExDS) is a controversial diagnosis. The supposed syndrome is sometimes considered to be a potential cause of death. However, it has been argued that its sole purpose is to cover up excessive police violence because it is mainly used to explain deaths of individuals in custody. In this paper, we examine the epistemic conditions giving rise to the controversial diagnosis by discussing the relation between causal hypotheses, evidence, and data in forensic medicine. We argue that the practitioners' social context affects causal inquiry through background assumptions that enter inquiry at multiple stages. This analysis serves to better understand the wide usage of the controversial diagnosis of ExDS.

Not in their hands only: hospital hygiene, evidence and collective moral responsibility.

Hospital acquired infections (HAIs) are a major threat to patient safety. This paper addresses the following question: given what is known about the causes of and possible interventions on HAIs, to whom or what should the moral responsibility for preventing these infections be attributed? First, we show how generating robust evidence on the effectiveness of preventive hygiene measures is a complex endeavour and review the existing evidence on the causes of HAIs. Second, we demonstrate that the existing literature on the ethical aspects of infection control has focused on responsibility at the individual-level. Thirdly, we argue that these accounts do not accommodate systemic factors relevant for HAI prevention. We show that the notion of collective responsibility is useful for making understandable how systemic factors, such as employment conditions in hospitals, are both causally and ethically relevant in infection control.

E-synthesis for carcinogenicity assessments: A case study of processed meat.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Recent controversies about dietary advice concerning meat demonstrate that aggregating the available evidence to assess a putative causal link between food and cancer is a challenging enterprise. METHODS: We show how a tool developed for assessing putative causal links between drugs and adverse drug reactions, E-Synthesis, can be applied for food carcinogenicity assessments. The application is demonstrated on the putative causal relationship between processed meat consumption and cancer. RESULTS: The output of the assessment is a Bayesian probability that processed meat consumption causes cancer. This Bayesian probability is calculated from a Bayesian network model, which incorporates a representation of Bradford Hill's Guidelines as probabilistic indicators of causality. We show how to determine probabilities of indicators of causality for food carcinogenicity assessments based on assessments of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We find that E-Synthesis is a tool well-suited for food carcinogenicity assessments, as it enables a graphical representation of lines and weights of evidence, offers the possibility to make a great number of judgements explicit and transparent, outputs a probability of causality suitable for decision making and is flexible to aggregate different kinds of evidence.

On evidence fiascos and judgments in COVID-19 policy.

Calls for evidence-based approaches to COVID-19 have sparked up discussions on the use of evidence for policy. In this note, we expand these discussions: while the debate has mostly focused on the types of evidence to be used for policy, we argue that the assessment of judgments involved in data practices and evidence production should play a central role in evaluating policy.

On the evidentiary standards for nutrition advice.

This paper evaluates the application of evidentiary standards originating from evidence-based medicine in nutrition advice. It shows that it is problematic to criticize nutrition recommendations for not being based on randomized controlled trials. Due to practical, ethical and methodological and reasons, it is difficult to conduct rigorous randomized controlled trials for acquiring evidence that is relevant for achieving the goals of population-level nutrition recommendations. Given the non-epistemic goals of the dietary recommendations, criteria of acceptable evidence should be adapted to the goals of the practice and the practical, ethical, and methodological constraints of the situation.

On ideals of objectivity, judgments, and bias in medical research - A comment on Stegenga.

By using Stegenga's article Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence as a case study, this paper shows how different notions of objectivity can affect discussions concerning medical research. I argue that the ideal of objectivity that underlies Stegenga's article is both unattainable in practice and insufficient and unnecessary in principle to capture some of the ways in which biases may enter medical knowledge production.