Responses

PDF

Cultural crossings of care: An appeal to the medical humanities
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    A Shift in the MH long needed
    • Tobias Dietrich, Doctoral Candidate University of Bremen, Centre for Media, Communication and Information Research (ZeMKI)

    Kristeva and her colleagues argue for a bilateral dialogue between the culture and the scientific Humanities and putatively objective Natural Sciences. As they are strikingly tracing back the Humanities' supplementary character for a dominant biomedical perspective of health and sickness, they establish decisive and inspiring landmarks to realigning the realm of Medical Humanities which needs to be continued. However, it remains unclear which concept of culture is applied and how to equate it to the Humanities as joined opposite of Science. Furthermore, when it comes to criticizing the monopole of evidence-based research in Natural Science, we should consider that it is not this approach that "runs the risk of exalting biology into an ‘essential Being’ and a normative stasis " (p. 3), but as well and in particular the interpretative act of clinicians and medecins which is worth having a deeper look in (as did Zimmermann 2016; Jurecic 2012; Hunter 1991). And, on the opposite, it would be interesting to focus not only on the perspective of the "experts" but as well on the patients' impact on co-creating the array between health and sickness. It would be beneficial to add this experiential dimension of everyday life to the discussion. At last, this well informed polemic offers thorough starting points for further discussion and gives new insights scholars have already been waiting for for so long.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.