Erosion of the 'ethical' doctor-patient relationship and the rise of physician burn-out.

This paper examines the topic of physician burn-out from a philosophical lens. We explore the question of how the rise of physician burn-out may be related to an underlying erosion of meaning in medicine, characterised by the breakdown of the intersubjective relationship between doctors and patients. We argue that while commonly cited strategies for addressing burnout-including promoting work-life integration, cultivating workplace community, and fostering resilience-are critical for enhancing physician well-being, the common thread linking these approaches is that each identifies the physician as the primary locus of intervention. We propose that physician-centric approaches alone may be insufficient in addressing burnout, as the work might also involve shifting our attention to the intersubjective space that exists between the physician and the patient. To further elucidate the connection between intersubjectivity and the creation of meaning in medicine, we call on twentieth-century philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. Applying Levinas's philosophy to the clinical context, we discuss the phenomenon of 'depersonalisation' and ask whether, rather than a mere consequence of burnout, depersonalisation might be a core cause of this condition. With these points we shed light on an idea that is relatively absent from the burn-out literature: that a person-oriented approach is vital not only for patient well-being but for physician wellness as well, as a process that 'de-personalizes' patients might result in a simultaneous dehumanisation of physicians themselves. Drawing inspiration from Levinas, we explore how a reorientation towards the intersubjective, dialogical dimension of the doctor-patient dyad could serve as one important ingredient in healing not only the patient, but the physician as well.

Three visions of doctoring: a Gadamerian dialogue.

Medicine in the twenty-first century faces an 'identity crisis,' as it grapples with the emergence of various 'ways of knowing,' from evidence-based and translational medicine, to narrative-based and personalized medicine. While each of these approaches has uniquely contributed to the advancement of patient care, this pluralism is not without tension. Evidence-based medicine is not necessary individualized; personalized medicine may be individualized but is not necessarily person-centered. As novel technologies and big data continue to proliferate today, the focus of medical practice is shifting away from the dialogic encounter between doctor and patient, threatening the loss of humanism that many view as integral to medicine's identity. As medical trainees, we struggle to synthesize medicine's diverse and evolving 'ways of knowing' and to create a vision of doctoring that integrates new forms of medical knowledge into the provision of person-centered care. In search of answers, we turned to twentieth-century philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer, whose unique outlook on "health" and "healing," we believe, offers a way forward in navigating medicine's 'messy pluralism.' Drawing inspiration from Gadamer's emphasis on dialogue and 'practical wisdom' (phronesis), we initiated a dialogue with the dean of our medical school to address the question of how medical trainees and practicing clinicians alike can work to create a more harmonious pluralism in medicine today. We propose that implementing a pluralistic approach ultimately entails 'bridging' the current divide between scientific theory and the practical art of healing, and involves an iterative and dialogic process of asking questions and seeking answers.

I and Thou: learning the 'human' side of medicine.

This essay is a reflection on the doctor-patient relationship from the perspective of two medical students, which draws on the ideas of 20th-century philosopher Martin Buber. Although Buber never wrote about medicine directly, his 'philosophy of dialogue' raises fundamental questions about how human beings relate to one another, and can thus offer valuable insights into the nature of the clinical encounter. We argue that Buber's basic word pairs, 'I-You' and 'I-It', provide a useful heuristic for understanding different modes of caring for patients, which we illustrate using examples of illness narratives from two literary works: Tolstoy's Ivan Ilych and Margaret Edson's Wit Our essay demonstrates how the humanities in general and philosophy in particular can inform a more humanistic practice for healthcare trainees and practicing clinicians alike.