Search T-Space Advanced Search
Home

Browse
Communities
& Collections

Issue Date
Author
Title
Subject

Sign on to:
Receive email
updates

My Account
authorized users

Edit Profile

Help
About T-Space
 Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/11182

 Title: Valuing and Evaluating Evidence in Medicine Authors: Borgerson, Kirstin Advisor: Morrison, Margaret Department: Philosophy Keywords: PhilosophyPhilosophy of MedicineSocial EpistemologyEvidence-based Medicine Issue Date: 30-Jul-2008 Abstract: Medical decisions should be based on good evidence. But this does not mean that health care professionals should practice evidence-based medicine. This dissertation explores how these two positions come apart, why they come apart, and what we should do about it. I begin by answering the descriptive question, what are current standards of evidence in medicine? I then provide a detailed critique of these standards. Finally, I address the more difficult normative question, how should we determine standards of evidence in medicine? In medicine, standards of evidence have been established by the pervasive evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement. Until now, these standards have not been subjected to comprehensive philosophical scrutiny. I outline and defend a theory of knowledge – a version of Helen Longino’s Critical Contextual Empiricism (CCE) – which enables me to critically evaluate EBM. My version of CCE emphasizes the critical evaluation of background assumptions. In accordance with this, I identify and critically evaluate the three substantive assumptions underlying EBM. First, I argue that medicine should not be held to the restrictive definition of science assumed by proponents of EBM. Second, I argue that epidemiological evidence should not be the only “base” of medical decisions. Third, I argue that not only is the particular hierarchy of evidence assumed by EBM unjustified, but that any attempt to hierarchically rank research methods is incoherent and unjustifiably restricts medical knowledge. Current standards of evidence divert attention from many legitimate sources of evidence. This distorts medical research and practice. In the remainder of the dissertation I propose means for improving not only current standards of medical evidence but also the process of producing and defending future standards. On the basis of four CCE norms, I argue that we have reason to protect and promote those features of the medical community that facilitate diversity, transparency, and critical interaction. Only then can we ensure that the medical community retains its ability to produce evidence that is both rigorous and relevant to practice. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/11182 Appears in Collections: DoctoralDepartment of Philosophy - Doctoral theses

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Borgerson_Kirstin_200806_PhD_Thesis.pdf948.43 kBAdobe PDF
View/Open

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Items in T-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.