IV Hermeneutical circle in deconstruction and construction of stories
There is a persistent tension between the formalist quantitative approach to medicine and the humanistic qualitative narrative. This is “resonant in biomedical ethics where clinical judgment and ethical reasoning often appear inseparable from the particular circumstances of individual cases” . Oftentimes, a clinician and her patient concur together to what is called in the literature the joint construction of narrative. Obviously, in so doing, there is no dismissal of sophisticated quantitative methods to medicine. Narrative medicine does not offer an alternative to the medical formalist scrutiny, although it integrates it with deeper qualitative insights.
The dichotomy of approaches is not a great deal in contemporary medical literature, even if the complementarity of methods of analysis calls for further sophistication and developments. The major take-home point is, at a first glance, there is no reason justifying mutual exclusiveness of approaches.
In many respects, medicine encourages specialization and fragmentation of fields: this tendency has the advantage of …show more content…
But, after all, the suggested diagnosis is also revisable. The capacity to revise a diagnosis is of the utmost importance. One might interpret signs differently, or simply attend to new phenomenological clues. Another element that justifies revision of previous interpretations is time: cases are situated in time. Storytelling is all about stories in time. Un-plotted stories do not make any sense, as argued in the beginning. Hence, time matters. Creativity and style are very relevant too. Telling narratives, of whatever sort, even when listing symptoms, amounts to a creative practice. As for the style, it identifies the intrinsic subjectivity in a story, and grasps personal nuances. Lastly, but not in order of priority, intuitions often offer an invaluable support in the diagnosis
There is a persistent tension between the formalist quantitative approach to medicine and the humanistic qualitative narrative. This is “resonant in biomedical ethics where clinical judgment and ethical reasoning often appear inseparable from the particular circumstances of individual cases” . Oftentimes, a clinician and her patient concur together to what is called in the literature the joint construction of narrative. Obviously, in so doing, there is no dismissal of sophisticated quantitative methods to medicine. Narrative medicine does not offer an alternative to the medical formalist scrutiny, although it integrates it with deeper qualitative insights.
The dichotomy of approaches is not a great deal in contemporary medical literature, even if the complementarity of methods of analysis calls for further sophistication and developments. The major take-home point is, at a first glance, there is no reason justifying mutual exclusiveness of approaches.
In many respects, medicine encourages specialization and fragmentation of fields: this tendency has the advantage of …show more content…
But, after all, the suggested diagnosis is also revisable. The capacity to revise a diagnosis is of the utmost importance. One might interpret signs differently, or simply attend to new phenomenological clues. Another element that justifies revision of previous interpretations is time: cases are situated in time. Storytelling is all about stories in time. Un-plotted stories do not make any sense, as argued in the beginning. Hence, time matters. Creativity and style are very relevant too. Telling narratives, of whatever sort, even when listing symptoms, amounts to a creative practice. As for the style, it identifies the intrinsic subjectivity in a story, and grasps personal nuances. Lastly, but not in order of priority, intuitions often offer an invaluable support in the diagnosis