Fragility, uncertainty, and healthcare
- 739 Downloads
Medicine seeks to overcome one of the most fundamental fragilities of being human, the fragility of good health. No matter how robust our current state of health, we are inevitably susceptible to future illness and disease, while current disease serves to remind us of various frailties inherent in the human condition. This article examines the relationship between fragility and uncertainty with regard to health, and argues that there are reasons to accept rather than deny at least some forms of uncertainty. In situations of current ill health, both patients and doctors seek to manage this fragility through diagnoses that explain suffering and provide some certainty about prognosis as well as treatment. However, both diagnosis and prognosis are inevitably uncertain to some degree, leading to questions about how much uncertainty health professionals should disclose, and how to manage when diagnosis is elusive, leaving patients in uncertainty. We argue that patients can benefit when they are able to acknowledge, and appropriately accept, some uncertainty. Healthy people may seek to protect the fragility of their good health by undertaking preventative measures including various tests and screenings. However, these attempts to secure oneself against the onset of biological fragility can cause harm by creating rather than eliminating uncertainty. Finally, we argue that there are good reasons for accepting the fragility of health, along with the associated uncertainties.
KeywordsFragility Vulnerability Uncertainty Healthcare Screening Overdiagnosis
We thank the editors for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
This study was funded by ARC Future Fellowship grant 130100346 (funding Rogers) and a Macquarie University Future Fellowship start up grant (funding Walker).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Gawande, A. 2002. Complications: A surgeon’s notes on an imperfect science. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
- 2.Mackenzie, C., W. Rogers, and S. Dodds. 2014. Introduction: What is vulnerability and why does it matter for moral theory? In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, ed. C. Mackenzie, W. Rogers, and S. Dodds, 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 18.Katz, J. 1984. The silent world of doctor and patient. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- 21.Wilson, J.M.G., and G. Jungner. 1968. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/4/07-050112/en/. Accessed April 9, 2015.
- 22.Crawford, R. 2004. Risk ritual and the management of control and anxiety in medical culture. Health 8(4): 505–528.Google Scholar
- 23.National Health Service. 2014. Health checks for ages 30 to 64. http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/screening/pages/checks30to64.aspx. Accessed April 8, 2015.
- 31.Entwistle, V.A., S.M. Carter, L. Trevena, K. Flitcroft, L. Irwig, K. McCaffrey, and G. Salkeld. 2008. Communicating about screening. BMJ 337(7673): 789–791.Google Scholar
- 33.National Health Service. 2013. NHS breast screening: Helping you decide. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/ia-02.html. Accessed April 8, 2015.
- 35.Fineman, M.A. 2008. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20(1): 1–23.Google Scholar