Advertisement

Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp 1013–1017 | Cite as

Why include the humanities in medical studies?

  • Giovanni Boniolo
  • Raffaella CampanerEmail author
  • Sergio Coccheri
Points of View

Abstract

The relation between philosophy and biomedicine has been reassessed and rethought in the last few years: on the one hand, philosophy of science has paid increasing attention to actual modes of biomedical research and clinical practice; on the other, classes in philosophy, and more generally, in the humanities, have started entering medical curricula. However, the role of philosophy in medical education is not yet unanimously recognized, with situations differing significantly in various national and international contexts. In line with the tradition in Italy and other countries of reflecting on clinical methodology and with the recent initiatives at the crossroads between medicine and philosophy, this contribution aims to argue for the mutual relevance of medicine and philosophy in educational processes, and to suggest some possible forms of implementation of their interactions.

Keywords

Philosophy of science for medicine Medical humanities Medical curricula 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors, Proff. Giovanni Boniolo, Raffaella Campaner, and Sergio Coccheri, declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, no informed consent is required.

References

  1. 1.
    Banner O, Carlin N, Cole TR (eds) (2019) Teaching health humanities. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bleakley A (2015) Medical humanties and medical education. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peterkin AD, Skorzewska, (eds) (2018) Health humanities in postgraduate medical education. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McFarland J, Markovina I, Gibbs T (2018) Concluding commentary: the importance of the humanities in medical education: where are we now? AMEE Med Ed Publish.  https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2018.0000220.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swanwick T, Forrest K, O’Brien BC (2018) Understanding medical education: evidence, theory and practice. Wiley, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boniolo G, Sanchini V (eds) (2016) Ethical counselling and medical decision-making in the era of personalized medicine. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coccheri S (2017) Error, contradiction and reversal in science and medicine. Euro J Int Med 41:28–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Annoni et al (2012) Constructing the medical humanities gaze. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol 84(Suppl 2):S5–S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith R (2016) Medicine needs for philosophy https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/04/08/richard-smith-medicines-need-for-philosophy/. April 8, 2016
  10. 10.
    Casadevall A (2015) Put the “Ph” back in PhD. https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2015/summer/forum/rethinking-put-the-ph-back-in-phd/. Accessed 26 Feb 2019
  11. 11.
    Edwards MA, Siddhartha R (2017) Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environ Eng Sci 234:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartgerink CH (2015) Research misconduct: speed translation of misconduct reports. Nature 522:419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horbach SPJM, Halffman W (2017) Promoting virtue or punishing fraud: mapping contrasts in the language of scientific integrity. Sci Eng Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steen RG, Casadevall A et al (2013) Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE 8:e68397CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Resnik DB, Wager E, Kissling GE (2015) Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. J Med Libr Assoc. 103:136–139CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cyranoski D, Ledford H (2018) Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry. Nature 563:607–608.  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07545-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Normile D (2018) For China, a CRISPR first goes too far. Science, 362(6419):1091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baker M (2016) Dutch agency launches first grants programme dedicated to replication, 3-year pilot devotes €3 million to verifying other studies. Nat News.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Munafò MR et al (2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav 1:0021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2:e124CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Medicina Interna (SIMI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Sciences and Specialist SurgeryUniversity of FerraraFerraraItaly
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and Communication StudiesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.University of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations