Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics
Identifieur interne : 002E03 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 002E02; suivant : 002E04Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics
Auteurs : Ian KerridgeSource :
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice [ 1356-1294 ] ; 2010-04.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) has been effective because it confers both epistemic and moral authority, promising that both individual patient care and public health interventions are effective, safe and efficient, that these decisions and standards can be determined (and therefore judged) in a transparent manner and that this form of decision making is reliable, objective and value‐free. The problem is that EBM refers to particular, ideologically and philosophically specific concepts of evidence, medicine and the relationship between them. The analysis of the ‘ethics’ of EBM, therefore, requires not only a critique of its philosophical naïvety and its attachment to modernism and positivism, but a critique of its social, cultural and political implications.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01412.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics</title><author><name sortKey="Kerridge, Ian" sort="Kerridge, Ian" uniqKey="Kerridge I" first="Ian" last="Kerridge">Ian Kerridge</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Associate Professor, Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01412.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">002E03</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics</title><author><name sortKey="Kerridge, Ian" sort="Kerridge, Ian" uniqKey="Kerridge I" first="Ian" last="Kerridge">Ian Kerridge</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Associate Professor, Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</title><idno type="ISSN">1356-1294</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2753</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-04">2010-04</date><biblScope unit="volume">16</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="365">365</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="373">373</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1356-1294</idno></series><idno type="istex">0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01412.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JEP1412</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1356-1294</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>difference</term><term>ethics</term><term>evidence‐based medicine</term><term>ideology</term><term>judgement</term><term>politics</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) has been effective because it confers both epistemic and moral authority, promising that both individual patient care and public health interventions are effective, safe and efficient, that these decisions and standards can be determined (and therefore judged) in a transparent manner and that this form of decision making is reliable, objective and value‐free. The problem is that EBM refers to particular, ideologically and philosophically specific concepts of evidence, medicine and the relationship between them. The analysis of the ‘ethics’ of EBM, therefore, requires not only a critique of its philosophical naïvety and its attachment to modernism and positivism, but a critique of its social, cultural and political implications.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Ian Kerridge BA BMed(Hons) MPhil(Cantab) FRACP FRCPA</name><affiliations><json:string>Associate Professor, Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>difference</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ethics</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>evidence‐based medicine</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ideology</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>judgement</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>politics</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><abstract>Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) has been effective because it confers both epistemic and moral authority, promising that both individual patient care and public health interventions are effective, safe and efficient, that these decisions and standards can be determined (and therefore judged) in a transparent manner and that this form of decision making is reliable, objective and value‐free. The problem is that EBM refers to particular, ideologically and philosophically specific concepts of evidence, medicine and the relationship between them. The analysis of the ‘ethics’ of EBM, therefore, requires not only a critique of its philosophical naïvety and its attachment to modernism and positivism, but a critique of its social, cultural and political implications.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.332</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.216 x 793.701 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>6</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>767</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7794</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>47356</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>9</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>111</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>16</volume><pages><total>9</total><last>373</last><first>365</first></pages><issn><json:string>1356-1294</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><genre></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1365-2753</json:string></eissn><title>Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2753</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2010</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01412.x</json:string></doi><id>0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2010</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics</title><author><persName><forename type="first">Ian</forename><surname>Kerridge</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">BA BMed(Hons) MPhil(Cantab) FRACP FRCPA</roleName><affiliation>Associate Professor, Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</title><idno type="pISSN">1356-1294</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2753</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2753</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-04"></date><biblScope unit="volume">16</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="365">365</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="373">373</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01412.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JEP1412</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2010</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) has been effective because it confers both epistemic and moral authority, promising that both individual patient care and public health interventions are effective, safe and efficient, that these decisions and standards can be determined (and therefore judged) in a transparent manner and that this form of decision making is reliable, objective and value‐free. The problem is that EBM refers to particular, ideologically and philosophically specific concepts of evidence, medicine and the relationship between them. The analysis of the ‘ethics’ of EBM, therefore, requires not only a critique of its philosophical naïvety and its attachment to modernism and positivism, but a critique of its social, cultural and political implications.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>difference</term></item><item><term>ethics</term></item><item><term>evidence‐based medicine</term></item><item><term>ideology</term></item><item><term>judgement</term></item><item><term>politics</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2010-04">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2753</doi><issn type="print">1356-1294</issn><issn type="electronic">1365-2753</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JEP"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE">Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="04002"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jep.2010.16.issue-2</doi><titleGroup><title type="specialIssueTitle">Evidence Based Medicine</title></titleGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="16">16</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="2">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2010-04">April 2010</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="23" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01412.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JEP1412"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="9"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-03-30"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-03-30"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.4 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-31"></event><event agent="ncoronia" date="2013-07-29" type="updatedByStaff"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-30"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="365">365</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="373">373</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Associate Professor Ian Kerridge
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine
University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW
Australia
E‐mail: <email>kerridge@med.usyd.edu.au</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JEP.JEP1412.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication: 17 January 2010</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="68"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="8598"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics</title><title type="shortAuthors">I. Kerridge</title><title type="short">Ethics and EBM</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Ian</givenNames><familyName>Kerridge</familyName><degrees>BA BMed(Hons) MPhil(Cantab) FRACP FRCPA</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="aff-1-1" countryCode="AU"><unparsedAffiliation>Associate Professor, Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">difference</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">ethics</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">evidence‐based medicine</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">ideology</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">judgement</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">politics</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) has been effective because it confers both epistemic and moral authority, promising that both individual patient care and public health interventions are effective, safe and efficient, that these decisions and standards can be determined (and therefore judged) in a transparent manner and that this form of decision making is reliable, objective and value‐free. The problem is that EBM refers to particular, ideologically and philosophically specific concepts of evidence, medicine and the relationship between them. The analysis of the ‘ethics’ of EBM, therefore, requires not only a critique of its philosophical naïvety and its attachment to modernism and positivism, but a critique of its social, cultural and political implications.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Ethics and EBM</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ian</namePart><namePart type="family">Kerridge</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">BA BMed(Hons) MPhil(Cantab) FRACP FRCPA</namePart><affiliation>Associate Professor, Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-04</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication: 17 January 2010</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="references">68</extent><extent unit="words">8598</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) has been effective because it confers both epistemic and moral authority, promising that both individual patient care and public health interventions are effective, safe and efficient, that these decisions and standards can be determined (and therefore judged) in a transparent manner and that this form of decision making is reliable, objective and value‐free. The problem is that EBM refers to particular, ideologically and philosophically specific concepts of evidence, medicine and the relationship between them. The analysis of the ‘ethics’ of EBM, therefore, requires not only a critique of its philosophical naïvety and its attachment to modernism and positivism, but a critique of its social, cultural and political implications.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>Keywords</genre><topic>difference</topic><topic>ethics</topic><topic>evidence‐based medicine</topic><topic>ideology</topic><topic>judgement</topic><topic>politics</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</title></titleInfo><identifier type="ISSN">1356-1294</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1365-2753</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2753</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JEP</identifier><part><date>2010</date><detail type="title"><title>Evidence Based Medicine</title></detail><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>16</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>365</start><end>373</end><total>9</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01412.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JEP1412</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/MozartV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002E03 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002E03 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Musique
|area= MozartV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:0CCC28EF23F42FFB0DCB0D2B9BE6BFC463C1A989
|texte= Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.20. |  |