Anna Estany

Doctors as a knowledge and intelligence building group: pragmatic principles underlying decision-making processes

Pragmatism, as a philosophical option, is concerned with end results and argues that “all our thought-distinctions, however subtle, demand a possible difference of practice.”1 Physicians calculate daily the best plan of action for each patient, following some pragmatic rules: only taking into account different strategies when they lead to different results, the personal effort and moral risks are considered, and if of equal outcome and cost, the strategy that best preserves clinical safety and moral values. The purpose of this study is not to clarify the content of philosophical pragmatism, but to observe how it is applied in clinical decisions and what difficulties arise. We propose a paediatric case to illustrate this process: Dr Seel has just been visited by a 3 year old boy affected by earache. Dr Seel thinks the boy has otitis, because the eardrum was bulging and slightly red, and Dr Seel is aware of current evidence-based recommendations2 which suggest that it is often not necessary to treat otitis with antibiotics. However the mother requests such treatment: “A few months ago he also had ear pain and non steroidal anti-inflammatory medicine didn’t work.” Dr Seel reconsiders her decisions, recalling the eardrum appearance, and prescribing antibiotics as a safer option. We can distinguish several aspects in this vignette: 1. Calculation of efficiency : What must I do to achieve a diagnosis or therapeutic goal, and how time-consuming would it be? For this calculation, the doctor has four sources of information: (1) her own experience; (2) evidence-based clinical guidelines; (3) deliberation with colleagues or her team3 and (4) any assistance available from laboratory or radiology studies. The result of this process is an action plan.4 Pragmatic calculus integrates all four elements, being physicians—in general—unable to specify the assigned weight to each one. The result of …

The Role of Methodology in Models of Scientific Change

The purpose of this essay is to analyze the role played by methodological questions in the development of science and, on the basis of this analysis, to see if that role corresponds to the part assigned to methodology in the models of scientific change. The hypothesis underlying this investigation is that methodology plays a major role in scientific revolutions and that its significance depends on the degree of “maturity”1 of the discipline concerned when the revolution takes place. If this hypothesis is “appropriate”2, we must conclude that the revolutions which have occurred so far in the social sciences were fundamentally revolutions in methodology. On comparing several models of scientific change (MSCH) (bearing in mind the differences among them), it does not seem that methodology occupies a prominent position. Therefore, if the MSCH is to reflect what actually happens, we must review several approaches and offer alternatives that are more compatible with the history of science.