The downgrading of pain sufferers’ credibility

Abstract Background The evaluation of pain remains one of the most difficult challenges that healthcare practitioners face. Chronic pain appears to affect more than 35% of the population in the West, and indeed, pain is the most common reason patients seek medical care. Despite its ubiquity, studies...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Mar Rosàs Tosas
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-10-01
Series:Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-021-00105-x
id doaj-ef87ada3d24345f084ce78e931360f9b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ef87ada3d24345f084ce78e931360f9b2021-10-10T11:34:30ZengBMCPhilosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine1747-53412021-10-0116111210.1186/s13010-021-00105-xThe downgrading of pain sufferers’ credibilityMar Rosàs Tosas0Blanquerna School of Health Sciences at Ramon Llull UniversityAbstract Background The evaluation of pain remains one of the most difficult challenges that healthcare practitioners face. Chronic pain appears to affect more than 35% of the population in the West, and indeed, pain is the most common reason patients seek medical care. Despite its ubiquity, studies in the last decades reveal that many patients feel their pain is dismissed by healthcare practitioners and that, as a result, they are denied proper medical care. Buchman, Ho, and Goldberg (J Bioethic Inq 14:31-42, 2017) point to this phenomenon as a form of “epistemic injustice”: an unfair and harmful downgrading of credibility affecting some individuals and groups, which prevents them from receiving appropriate and beneficial medical care. Methods By exploring the existing literature on this downgrading of patients’ credibility written by healthcare professionals and scholars in medical humanities, I identify and examine the reasons patients are often not believed about their pain and why healthcare is too-often unhelpful or hurtful to people presenting with chronic pain. I also explore to what extent it is possible to forge an alternative epistemological model. Results I suggest that most of the causes of this downgrading of patient’s credibility result from either the difficulty in communicating pain or the widespread belief that pathology is always the result of objective tissue damage. I examine whether pain has to be effectively communicated and have an objective cause in order for it to be deemed credible. In the end, I argue that in the case of pain, both communication and objectivity are highly problematic. Conclusions I conclude by suggesting that, although alternative epistemological models might be impossible to build, believing patients has both moral and clinical benefits, and this warrants further research.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-021-00105-xCredibilityCommunicationEpistemic injusticeObjectivityPainSkepticism
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mar Rosàs Tosas
spellingShingle Mar Rosàs Tosas
The downgrading of pain sufferers’ credibility
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
Credibility
Communication
Epistemic injustice
Objectivity
Pain
Skepticism
author_facet Mar Rosàs Tosas
author_sort Mar Rosàs Tosas
title The downgrading of pain sufferers’ credibility
title_short The downgrading of pain sufferers’ credibility
title_full The downgrading of pain sufferers’ credibility
title_fullStr The downgrading of pain sufferers’ credibility
title_full_unstemmed The downgrading of pain sufferers’ credibility
title_sort downgrading of pain sufferers’ credibility
publisher BMC
series Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
issn 1747-5341
publishDate 2021-10-01
description Abstract Background The evaluation of pain remains one of the most difficult challenges that healthcare practitioners face. Chronic pain appears to affect more than 35% of the population in the West, and indeed, pain is the most common reason patients seek medical care. Despite its ubiquity, studies in the last decades reveal that many patients feel their pain is dismissed by healthcare practitioners and that, as a result, they are denied proper medical care. Buchman, Ho, and Goldberg (J Bioethic Inq 14:31-42, 2017) point to this phenomenon as a form of “epistemic injustice”: an unfair and harmful downgrading of credibility affecting some individuals and groups, which prevents them from receiving appropriate and beneficial medical care. Methods By exploring the existing literature on this downgrading of patients’ credibility written by healthcare professionals and scholars in medical humanities, I identify and examine the reasons patients are often not believed about their pain and why healthcare is too-often unhelpful or hurtful to people presenting with chronic pain. I also explore to what extent it is possible to forge an alternative epistemological model. Results I suggest that most of the causes of this downgrading of patient’s credibility result from either the difficulty in communicating pain or the widespread belief that pathology is always the result of objective tissue damage. I examine whether pain has to be effectively communicated and have an objective cause in order for it to be deemed credible. In the end, I argue that in the case of pain, both communication and objectivity are highly problematic. Conclusions I conclude by suggesting that, although alternative epistemological models might be impossible to build, believing patients has both moral and clinical benefits, and this warrants further research.
topic Credibility
Communication
Epistemic injustice
Objectivity
Pain
Skepticism
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-021-00105-x
work_keys_str_mv AT marrosastosas thedowngradingofpainsuffererscredibility
AT marrosastosas downgradingofpainsuffererscredibility
_version_ 1716829713871142912