Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Medicina di Laboratorio e Postmodernità

Postmodern culture and laboratory medicine

  • Editoriale
  • Published:
La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio - Italian Journal of Laboratory Medicine

Riassunto

Per definire le prospettive, gli scenari e i ruoli della Medicina di Laboratorio nell’ambito della crisi economica e culturale odierna e nel prossimo futuro, è necessario alzare lo sguardo per individuare, seppur sommariamente, i caratteri del quadro culturale ed economico del nostro tempo: il Postmoderno.

Negli ultimi quindici anni anche nelle riviste mediche si è dibattuto molto di “medicina postmoderna” e, in particolare, in riferimento alla medicina interna e alla medicina generale che più hanno a che fare con il soggetto malato piuttosto che con la parte malata, mostrando una progressiva penetrazione della cultura postmoderna nel castello della medicina scientifica. Potremmo definire la crisi della medicina contemporanea come una crisi di “disillusione” rispetto alla visione positivista della disciplina come interprete delle “magnifiche sorti e progressive” delle scienze a essa ancillari e della sua capacità guaritrice e financo salvifica rispetto a tutti i problemi del “male”. Il drammatico mutamento odierno del rapporto medico-paziente può essere visto come l’epitome della crisi della Medicina, “una robusta arte di una debole scienza”.

Per quanto riguarda la Medicina di Laboratorio, essa è immersa nell’humus culturale della medicina contemporanea ed è influenzata, per la sua natura biomedica, in modo particolare dalla crisi delle certezze biologiche fondanti le due rivoluzioni della medicina moderna, dalla crisi metodologica che coinvolge anche la evidencebased medicine e dagli impatti sociali del mutamento dei concetti di salute/malattia e di medicina come cura. In questo quadro complesso la Medicina di Laboratorio ha alcuni compiti precisi: gestire l’incertezza delle misure, dell’interpretazione e della comunicazione; fondare e disseminare le evidenze col loro valore probabilistico; vivere il suo ruolo sociale, contribuendo a riconciliare lo hiatus postmoderno tra scienza e società.

Summary

To understand the present and the future of Laboratory Medicine, we must understand the contemporary cultural environment: the Postmodern Culture. Since ten or twenty years ago, medical journals have written seminal articles about the Postmodern in Internal Medicine and in General Practice, highlighting some aspects of contemporary crisis of Medicine, “a robust art of a soft science”. The positivistic and reductionist view of the “scientific” Medicine is challenged by increased uncertainty about the “truth” of science, the robustness of methods (mainly the evidence-based medicine), basic concepts (health/disease; what Medicine is) and general theories, built during the centuries from Hippocrates to molecular and genomic revolution. The dramatic changing of patient-physician relationship can be seen as the epitome of the crisis of Medicine.

Laboratory Medicine is involved by the fall of certainty of biologic and methodological truths. In this complex framework, it has some precise duties: managing the uncertainty of measurements, interpretation and communication; building and disseminating evidence and its probabilistic value; living its social role closing the gap between science and society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Bibliografia

  1. Parker KM, Talbert ML. Laboratory Medicine in the 21th Century. In Ward-Cook KM, Lehmann CA, Scoeff LE, Williams RH Eds (2003) Clinical Diagnostic Technology. The Total Testing Process. Volume 1: The Preanalytical Phase. Washington: AACCPress

    Google Scholar 

  2. Conte F (2011) L’insegnamento impossibile. Sul sapere postmoderno. L’Aquila: Textus Edizioni

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lyotard JF (1984) The postmodern: a report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press

    Google Scholar 

  4. Feyerabend P (1995) “Anything Goes”. In Walter Truett Anderson ed. The Truth About The Truth. New York, NY: Tarcher/Putnam Publishers, pp. 199–200

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kuhn TS (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hofstadter DR. Gödel, Escher, Bach (1979) An Eternal Golden Braid. New York, NY: Basic Books

  7. Lentini L (1990) Il paradigma del sapere. Conoscenza e teoria della conoscenza nella epistemologia contemporanea. Milano: FrancoAngeli

    Google Scholar 

  8. Snow CP (1959) The Two Cultures. London: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  9. Premuda L (1975) Storia della Medicina. Padova: CEDAM

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grmeck M (1993–1998) (a cura di) Storia del pensiero medico occidentale. Roma-Bari: Laterza

    Google Scholar 

  11. McKusik V (2004) The Anatomy of the Human Genome: a neovesalian basis for medicine in the 21th century. JAMA 292:2516–2518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Miettinen OS, Bachmann LM, Steurer J (2008) Towards scientific medicine: an information-age outlook. J Eval Clin Pract 14:771–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wehling P (2011) The “technoscientization” of medicine and its limits: technoscientific identities, biosocialities, and rare disease patient organizations. Poiesis Prax 8:67–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Illich I (1976) Medical Nemesis. New York: Pantheon Book

    Google Scholar 

  15. Moynihan R, Henry D (2006) The fight against disease mongering: generating knowledge for action. PLoS Med 3:e191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Clarke AE, Shim JK, Mamo L et al (2003) Biomedicalisation: technoscientific transformation of health, illness, and U.S. medicine. Am Sociol Rev 68:161–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sulik AG (2009) managing biomedical uncertainty: the technoscientific illness identity. Sociol Health Ill 30:1059–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada (1910) Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of Teaching. Bulletin No.4: New York

  19. Sackett DL, Richardson SW, Rosenberg W et al (2000) Evidence-Based Medicine. London: Churchill Livingstone

    Google Scholar 

  20. Corbellini G. EBM (2007) Evolution Based Medicine. Il darwinismo nelle scienze biomediche. Laterza: Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  21. Loughlin M (2008) Reason, reality and objectivity — shared dogmas and distortions in the way both “scientific” and “postmodern” commentators frame the EBM debate. J Eval Clin Pract 14:665–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Djiulbegovic B, Guyatt GH, Ashcroft RE (2009) Epistemologic Inquiries in Evidence-Based Medicine. Cancer Control 16: 158–168

    Google Scholar 

  23. De Simone J (2006) Reductionist inference-based medicine i.e. EBM. J Eval Clin Pract 12:445–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Holmes D, Murray DJ, Perron A et al (2006) Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health science: truth, power and fascism. Int J Evid Based Health 4:180–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Federspil G, Scandellari C (1999) La Medicina basata sulle evidenze. Un’analisi epistemologica. Medic 7:3–21

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jeniceck M (2006) The hard art of soft science: Evidence-Based Medicine, Reasoned Medicine or both? J Eval Clin Pract 12:410–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tonelli MR(1998) The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine. Acad Med 73:1234–1240

    Google Scholar 

  28. Massarenti A (2000) I soggetti delle scelte. Keiron 4:60–69

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gabbay J, le May A (2004) Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines”? Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ 329:1013–1017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bauchner H, Simpson L, Chessare J (2001) Changing physician behaviour. Arch Dis Child 84:459–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Marinker M (1975) Why make people patients? J Med Ethics 1:81–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. http://mapp.naccho.org/MAPP_Glossary.asp. WHO’s new proposed definition. 101st session of the WHO Executive Board, Geneva, January 1998, Resolution EB101.R2 [Accesso 5 marzo 2012]

  33. Boyd KM (2000) Disease, illness, sickness, health, healing and wholeness: Exploring some elusive concepts. Med Humanit 26:9–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hodgkin P. Medicine, postmodernism, and the end of certainty. BMJ 313:1568–1569

  35. Tombesi M (2003) Decidere in condizioni di incertezza. In Caimi V, Tombesi M ed. Medicina Generale. Torino: UTET p.78–79

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peirce CS. Semiotica (1980) I fondamenti della semiotica cognitiva. Torino: Einaudi

  37. Barrows HS, Feltovich PJ (1987) The clinical reasoning process. Medical Education 21:86–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Charlton BG (1993) Medicine and post-modernity. J R Soc Med 86:497–499

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Mathers N, Rowland G (1997) General Practice — a postmodern specialty? Br J Gen Pract 47:177–179

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Muir Gray JA (1999) Postmodern medicine. Lancet 354:1550–1553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Morris DB (2000) How to speak postmodern. Medicine, illness, and cultural change. Hastings Cent Rep 30:7–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Relman AS (1988) Assessment and accountability. The third devolution in medical care. N Engl J Med 319:1220–1222

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Freidson E (2002) La dominanza medica. Milano: FrancoAngeli

    Google Scholar 

  44. Skirbek H (2009) Negotiated or taken-for-granted trust? Explicit and implicit interpretations of trust in a medical setting. Med Health Care and Philos 12:3–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cavicchi I (2011) Una filosofia per la medicina. Razionalità clinica tra attualità e ragionevolezza. Bari: Edizioni Dedalo

    Google Scholar 

  46. Silva SA, Charon R, Wyer C (2010) The marriage of evidence and narrative: scientific nurturance within clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract 17:585–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Engelhardt T (1986) The foundations of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  48. http://portale.fnomceo.it/PortaleFnomceo/search.2puntOT?query=medicine+non+convenzionali [Accesso 5 marzo 2012]

  49. Schneider PB (1994) Fare il medico. Vocazione e formazione del medico oggi e domani. Milano: FrancoAngeli

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gadamer HG (1994) Dove si nasconde la salute. Milano: RaffaelloCortina Editore

    Google Scholar 

  51. Theise ND (2006) Implications of’ postmodern biology’ for pathology: the Cell Doctrine. Lab Invest 86:335–344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Cappelletti P (2003) La Medicina Molecolare e la Medicina di Laboratorio. Riv Med Lab — JLM 4S1:19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Cappelletti P (2010) La Medicina di Laboratorio Predittiva, Preventiva, Personalizzata e Partecipata. Il Caso della Sindrome Metabolica. RIMeL/IJLaM 6(Suppl):6–10

    Google Scholar 

  54. Taylor BN, Kuyatt CE. Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results. NIST Technical Note 1297 — 1994 Edition.

  55. http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_101_2008_E.pdf.JCGM 101: 2008 Evaluation of measurement data — Supplement 1 to the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” — Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method [Accesso 5 marzo 2012]

  56. Rozet E, Rudaz S, Marini RD et al (2011) Models to estimate overall analytical measurements uncertainty: assumptions, comparisons and applications. Anal Chim Acta 702:160–171.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Kristiansen J (2003) The Guide to Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Approach for Estimating Uncertainty. An Appraisal. Clin Chem 49:1822–1829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Krouwer JS (2003) Critique of the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement Method of Estimating and Reporting Uncertainty in Diagnostic Assays. Clin Chem 49:1818–1821

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Dorizzi RM (2004) Verso l’appropriatezza diagnostica di laboratorio non dimenticando l’incertezza della misura. Riv Med Lab — JLM 5:62–63

    Google Scholar 

  60. Dorizzi RM (2007) Una roadmap per la Information Technology in medicina di Laboratorio. RIMeL/IJLaM 3:75–81

    Google Scholar 

  61. Cappelletti P (2006) Utilità diagnostica: la fase preanalitica. RIMeL/IJLaM 2:5–19

    Google Scholar 

  62. Horvath A (2004) Quale evidenza abbiamo degli esami di laboratorio? Riv Med Lab — JLM 4:274–282

    Google Scholar 

  63. Dorizzi RM, Esposito E (2004) Dalle specifiche di qualità allo STARD. Riv Med Lab — JLM 5-S1:89–95

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PloS Med e124

  65. Cappelletti P (2006) La sicurezza del paziente e la Medicina di Laboratorio. RIMeL/JILaM 2-S1:17–35

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ozdemir V, Suarez-Kurz G, Stenne R et al (2009) Risk assessment and communication tools for genotype association with multifactorial phenotypes: the concept of “edge effect” and cultivating an ethical bridge between omics innovations and society. OMICS 13:43–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piero Cappelletti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cappelletti, P. Medicina di Laboratorio e Postmodernità. Riv Ital Med Lab 8, 1–15 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13631-012-0036-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13631-012-0036-1

Parole chiave

Key words

Navigation