Shared decision making after macintyre

Jon Tilburt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper explores the practical consequences that Enlightenment ideals had on morality as it applies to clinical practice, using Alisdair MacIntyre's conceptualization and critique of the Enlightenment as its reference point. Taking the perspective of a practicing clinician, I critically examine the historical origins of ideas that made shared decision making (SDM) a necessary and ideal model of clinician-patient relationship. I then build on MacIntyre's critique of Enlightenment thought and examine its implications for conceptions of shared decision-making that use an Enlightenment justification, as well as examining contemporary threats to SDM that the Enlightenment made possible. I conclude by offering an alternative framing of SDM that fits with the clinician's duty to act on behalf of and along with patients but that avoids the tenuous Enlightenment assumptions that MacIntyre's work so vocally critiques.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)148-169
Number of pages22
JournalJournal of Medicine and Philosophy
Volume36
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Enlightenment
Clinicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Philosophy

Cite this

Shared decision making after macintyre. / Tilburt, Jon.

In: Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Vol. 36, No. 2, 04.2011, p. 148-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tilburt, Jon. / Shared decision making after macintyre. In: Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2011 ; Vol. 36, No. 2. pp. 148-169.
@article{9bb8c8424a8e4b11be934a056867e02c,
title = "Shared decision making after macintyre",
abstract = "This paper explores the practical consequences that Enlightenment ideals had on morality as it applies to clinical practice, using Alisdair MacIntyre's conceptualization and critique of the Enlightenment as its reference point. Taking the perspective of a practicing clinician, I critically examine the historical origins of ideas that made shared decision making (SDM) a necessary and ideal model of clinician-patient relationship. I then build on MacIntyre's critique of Enlightenment thought and examine its implications for conceptions of shared decision-making that use an Enlightenment justification, as well as examining contemporary threats to SDM that the Enlightenment made possible. I conclude by offering an alternative framing of SDM that fits with the clinician's duty to act on behalf of and along with patients but that avoids the tenuous Enlightenment assumptions that MacIntyre's work so vocally critiques.",
author = "Jon Tilburt",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1093/jmp/jhr003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "148--169",
journal = "Journal of Medicine and Philosophy",
issn = "0360-5310",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shared decision making after macintyre

AU - Tilburt, Jon

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - This paper explores the practical consequences that Enlightenment ideals had on morality as it applies to clinical practice, using Alisdair MacIntyre's conceptualization and critique of the Enlightenment as its reference point. Taking the perspective of a practicing clinician, I critically examine the historical origins of ideas that made shared decision making (SDM) a necessary and ideal model of clinician-patient relationship. I then build on MacIntyre's critique of Enlightenment thought and examine its implications for conceptions of shared decision-making that use an Enlightenment justification, as well as examining contemporary threats to SDM that the Enlightenment made possible. I conclude by offering an alternative framing of SDM that fits with the clinician's duty to act on behalf of and along with patients but that avoids the tenuous Enlightenment assumptions that MacIntyre's work so vocally critiques.

AB - This paper explores the practical consequences that Enlightenment ideals had on morality as it applies to clinical practice, using Alisdair MacIntyre's conceptualization and critique of the Enlightenment as its reference point. Taking the perspective of a practicing clinician, I critically examine the historical origins of ideas that made shared decision making (SDM) a necessary and ideal model of clinician-patient relationship. I then build on MacIntyre's critique of Enlightenment thought and examine its implications for conceptions of shared decision-making that use an Enlightenment justification, as well as examining contemporary threats to SDM that the Enlightenment made possible. I conclude by offering an alternative framing of SDM that fits with the clinician's duty to act on behalf of and along with patients but that avoids the tenuous Enlightenment assumptions that MacIntyre's work so vocally critiques.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957487858&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79957487858&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jmp/jhr003

DO - 10.1093/jmp/jhr003

M3 - Article

C2 - 21378085

AN - SCOPUS:79957487858

VL - 36

SP - 148

EP - 169

JO - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

JF - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

SN - 0360-5310

IS - 2

ER -