Upon hearing the definition of medical knowledge being a narrative, my immediate reaction was one of distress. I was furious and confused as to how what my doctors do could be compared to something that offers so many loopholes to subjective interventions. I was quick to dismiss such a claim and any other claim which came close to discrediting the work of heroes, doctors. To somehow state that what physicians are doing is less than objective medicine is blasphemous. However, slowly reading Montgomery (How Doctors Thnk: Clinical Judgement and the Practice of Medicine), I warmed up to the idea that medicine being considered not a science doesn’t reduce its effectiveness or importance. This then lead, even though skeptical at first, to an agreement
…show more content…
First, information is collected from a particular patient, the information gathered is not only used to treat that particular patient, but gives the physician and by extension all physicians added or confirmed information about a specific illness. The information aids in solidifying medical knowledge. This knowledge becomes an objective standard if it offers the physician necessary information for the treatment of that particular illness. However, this might not always be straightforward and therefore may seem to not be universal. The make-up of the human person is so unique that in a world of seven (7) billion persons, one can’t find two that are the same. This makes it difficult for an absolute universal treatment possible for all human beings suffering from a similar illness. This multiplies with that fact that a particular illness could have multiple symptoms. However, the more physicians learn about a particular illness, the better able they are to treat these illnesses. It is the universality and objectivity of this medical knowledge which allows physicians to know exactly what direction to proceed for the treatment of particular illnesses. One can be fully assured that physicians around the world offer the same treatments or at least medications with the same general combinations of ingredients for a similar illness. However, since we know that all human beings are different, the reaction of a particular patient to a particular treatment can and could be different from the ninety-nine (99) other patients who reacted as expected. Does this one ‘failed’ use of medical knowledge debunk the universality and created an objective standard for that particular knowledge? I would argue no, and that it helps to solidify the environment needed for a particular treatment to work. It adds to medical knowledge as it identifies exceptions rather than not conforming to an objective standard. For
First, information is collected from a particular patient, the information gathered is not only used to treat that particular patient, but gives the physician and by extension all physicians added or confirmed information about a specific illness. The information aids in solidifying medical knowledge. This knowledge becomes an objective standard if it offers the physician necessary information for the treatment of that particular illness. However, this might not always be straightforward and therefore may seem to not be universal. The make-up of the human person is so unique that in a world of seven (7) billion persons, one can’t find two that are the same. This makes it difficult for an absolute universal treatment possible for all human beings suffering from a similar illness. This multiplies with that fact that a particular illness could have multiple symptoms. However, the more physicians learn about a particular illness, the better able they are to treat these illnesses. It is the universality and objectivity of this medical knowledge which allows physicians to know exactly what direction to proceed for the treatment of particular illnesses. One can be fully assured that physicians around the world offer the same treatments or at least medications with the same general combinations of ingredients for a similar illness. However, since we know that all human beings are different, the reaction of a particular patient to a particular treatment can and could be different from the ninety-nine (99) other patients who reacted as expected. Does this one ‘failed’ use of medical knowledge debunk the universality and created an objective standard for that particular knowledge? I would argue no, and that it helps to solidify the environment needed for a particular treatment to work. It adds to medical knowledge as it identifies exceptions rather than not conforming to an objective standard. For