Advertisement

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 71–83 | Cite as

Fragility, uncertainty, and healthcare

  • Wendy A. RogersEmail author
  • Mary J. Walker
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Fragility Vulnerability Uncertainty Healthcare Screening Overdiagnosis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the editors for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Funding

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Gawande, A. 2002. Complications: A surgeon’s notes on an imperfect science. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Waymark, M.H. 2009. Yearning for certainty and the critique of medicine as “science”. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30: 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jutel, A. 2013. When pigs could ply: Influenza and the elusive nature of diagnosis. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 56(4): 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wasfy, J.H. 2006. Learning about clinical uncertainty. Academic Medicine 81(12): 1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Undeland, M., and K. Malterud. 2007. The fibromyalgia diagnosis: Hardly helpful for patients? Scandinavian Journal for Primary Health Care 25: 250–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nettleton, S., L. O’Malley, I. Watt, and P. Duffey. 2006. Enigmatic illness: Narrative of patients who live with medically unexplained symptoms. Social Theory and Health 2: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nettleton, S. 2004. ‘I just want permission to be ill’: Towards a sociology of medically unexplained symptoms. Social Science and Medicine 62: 1167–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Velleman, J.D. 2005. The self as narrator. In Self to self, ed. J.D. Velleman, 203–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olde Hartman, T.C., L.J. Hassink-Franke, P.L. Lucassen, K.P. Van Spaendonck, and C. Van Weel. 2009. Explanation and relations: How do general practitioners deal with patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms: A focus group study. BMC Family Practice 10: 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fox, R. 1980. The evolution of medical uncertainty. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 58: 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fox, R. 2000. Medical uncertainty revisited. In The handbook of social studies in health and medicine, ed. G.L. Abrecht, R. Fitzpatrick, and S.C. Scrimshaw, 409–426. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beresford, E.B. 1991. Uncertainty and the shaping of medical decisions. Hastings Centre Report 21(4): 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall, K.H. 2002. Reviewing intuitive decision-making and uncertainty: The implications for medical education. Medical Education 36: 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seely, A.J.E. 2013. Embracing the certainty of uncertainty: Implications for health care and research. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 56(1): 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parascandola, M., J.S. Hawkins, and M. Danis. 2002. Patient autonomy and the challenge of clinical uncertainty. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12(3): 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ehrich, K., L. Cowie, and J. Sandall. 2015. Expect the unexpected: Patients’ and families’ expectations and experiences of new clinical procedures. Health Expectations 18(5): 918–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz, J. 1984. The silent world of doctor and patient. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shickle, D., and R. Chadwick. 1994. The ethics of screening: Is ‘screeningitis’ an incurable disease? Journal of Medical Ethics 20: 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ewart, R.M. 2000. Primum non nocere and the quality of evidence: Rethinking the ethics of screening. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 13(3): 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 22.
    Crawford, R. 2004. Risk ritual and the management of control and anxiety in medical culture. Health 8(4): 505–528.Google Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. 24.
    Altman, D.G., and J.M. Bland. 1994. Statistics notes: Diagnostic tests 1: Sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 308: 1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tosteson, A.N.A., D.G. Fryback, C.S. Hammond, et al. 2014. Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Internal Medicine 174(6): 954–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brodersen, J., and V.D. Siersma. 2013. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Annals of Family Medicine 11: 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moyhihan, R., J. Doust, and D. Henry. 2012. Preventing overdiagnosis: How to stop harming the healthy. BMJ 344: e3502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carter, S., W.A. Rogers, I. Heath, C. Degeling, J. Doust, and A. Barratt. 2015. The challenge of overdiagnosis begins with its definition. BMJ 350: h869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Welch, H.G., and W.C. Black. 2010. Overdiagnosis in cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 102: 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barratt, A. 2015. Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: A 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality. BMJ 350: h867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 32.
    Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. 2012. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380: 1778–1786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.
  34. 34.
    Hersch, J., A. Barratt, J. Jansen, et al. 2015. Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 385(9978): 1642–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department and Department of Clinical MedicineMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Philosophy DepartmentMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations