Cited by 749Feminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Epistemic injustice in healthcare: a philosophial analysis

Open access
Carel, Havi, Kidd, Ian James·2014·Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

Abstract

In this paper we argue that ill persons are particularly vulnerable to epistemic injustice in the sense articulated by Fricker (Epistemic injustice. Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007). Ill persons are vulnerable to testimonial injustice through the presumptive attribution of characteristics like cognitive unreliability and emotional instability that downgrade the credibility of their testimonies. Ill persons are also vulnerable to hermeneutical injustice because many aspects of the experience of illness are difficult to understand and communicate and this often owes to gaps in collective hermeneutical resources. We then argue that epistemic injustice arises in part owing to the epistemic privilege enjoyed by the practitioners and institutions of contemporary healthcare services--the former owing to their training, expertise, and third-person psychology, and the latter owing to their implicit privileging of certain styles of articulating and evidencing testimonies in ways that marginalise ill persons. We suggest that a phenomenological toolkit may be part of an effort to ameliorate epistemic injustice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11019-014-9560-2

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research has revealed systematic stifling of the voices and interpretive tools available to ill and disabled persons, especially their information providing, testimonies, and interpretations.

    “What has been revealed is the systematic stifling of the voices and interpretive tools available to both ill and disabled persons: in particular, their information providing, testimonies, and interpretations.”

    From Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life (2022) · cites this paper as Carel & Kidd, 2014

    Section 1, “Testimonial and hermeneutical injustice” (page unavailable), describes how ill people’s testimony and interpretations can be ignored, downgraded, or treated merely as information. Section 2 gives an example involving a disabled person, but the paper does not establish systematic stifling across disabled people as a group; its broader analysis focuses on ill people. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Anderson, E. 2012. Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions. Social Epistemology 26 (2): 163-173.
  2. Beeby, L. 2011. A critique of hermeneutical injustice. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111(3)3: 479-486. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9264.2011.00319.x · DOI
  3. Carel, H. (2012). Phenomenology as a resource for patients. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37(2): 96-113. DOI: 10.1093/jmp/JHS008 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Carel, H. (2013). Bodily doubt. Journal of Consciousness Studies (in press).
  5. Coulter, A., J. Ellins 2006 Patient focused interventions: A review of the evidence . London: The Health Foundation, available online at www.health.org.uk.
  6. Dennett, D. 1981. Brainstorms . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  7. Feldman, M.D. 2004. Playing sick? Untangling the web of Munchausen syndrome, Munchausen by proxy, malingering, and factitious disorder. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
  8. Greener, I. 2009. Healthcare in the UK: Understanding continuity and change . Bristol: The Policy Press.
  9. Heidegger, M. 1962 [1927]. Being and time . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  10. Ho, A. 2010. Trusting experts and epistemic humility in disability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 4(2): 102-123.
  11. McIver, S. 2011. User perspectives and involvement. In: Healthcare management 2 nd ed. (pp.354-372), K. Walshe and J. Smith (eds.) Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  12. Medina, J. 2012. The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and the social imagination . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962 [1945]. Phenomenology of perception . New York: Routledge.
  14. Ratcliffe, M. 2008. Feelings of being: Phenomenology, psychiatry and the sense of reality . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Ratcliffe, M. 2012. Phenomenology as a form of empathy. Inquiry 55(5). DOI:10.1080/0020174X.2012.716196 · DOI
  16. Rosenbaum, L. 2012. How much would you give to save a dying bird? Patient advocacy and biomedical research. New England Journal of Medicine 367:1755-1759. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMms1207114 · DOI
  17. Savino, A.C., J.S. Fordtran. 2006. Factitious disease: clinical lessons from case studiesat Baylor University Medical Center. Proceedings of Baylor University Medical Center 19:195208.
  18. Toombs, S.K. 1987. The meaning of illness: A phenomenological approach to the patientphysician relationship. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 12:219-40.
  19. Wanderer, J. 2011. Addressing testimonial injustice: being ignored and being rejected. The Philosophical Quarterly 62(246): 148-169.
  20. Wootton, D. 2007. Bad medicine . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carel, H., & Kidd, I. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Carel, Havi
Venue
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Published
2014-04-17
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
529-540
ISSN
  • 1386-7423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8633
OpenAlex
W2095154224
Cited by
749
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 170 · 2025: 139 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3
FWCI
48.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medicine Health Care and Philosophy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
epistemic injustice, testimonial injustice, hermeneutical injustice, illness, health care, credibility of testimony, epistemic privilege, healthcare practitioners, phenomenology, Fricker
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Disease, Humans, Philosophy, Medical, Social Justice, Knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review