Abstract
AbstractRecent philosophical literature on epistemic harms has paid little attention to the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate harms. In this paper, I analyze the “Curare Case,” a case from the 1940’s in which patient testimony was disregarded by physicians. This case has been described as an instance of epistemic injustice. I problematize this description, arguing instead that the case shows an instance of “epistemic disadvantage.” I propose epistemic disadvantage indicates when harms result from warranted asymmetric relations that justifiably exclude individuals from hermeneutical participation. Epistemic disadvantage categorizes harms that result from justifiable exclusions, are non-deliberate, and result from poor epistemic environments. This analysis brings out a meaningful difference between accidental and deliberate harms in communicative exchanges.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference29 articles.
1. Adadevoh, I. O. 2011. ‘Women’s Epistemic Exclusion and the Question of Equitable and Sustainable Educational Empowerment.’ Philica: 1–9.
2. Andreoletti, M., & Teira, D. (2017). Statistical Evidence and the Reliability of Medical Research. In M. Solomon, J. R. Simon, & H. Kincaid (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Medicine (pp. 218–227). Routledge.
3. Bennett, A. E. 1968. ‘The History of the Introduction of Curare into Medicine.’ Anesthesia and Analgesia: 484–92.
4. Carel, H., & Kidd, I. J. (2014). Epistemic Injustice in Healthcare: a philosophical analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17(4), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9560-2
5. Carel, H & Kidd, I. J. (2017). “Epistemic Injustice and Illness.” Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(2), 172–190. Accessed January 17, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12172.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献