Systems thinking in gender and medicine
If there is a single thread running through this issue of the journal, it may be the complex interplay between the individual and the system(s) of which they are apart, highlighting a need for systems thinking in medical ethics and public health.1 2 Such thinking raises at least three sorts of quest...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2020
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2020, Volume: 46, Issue: 4, Pages: 225-226 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | If there is a single thread running through this issue of the journal, it may be the complex interplay between the individual and the system(s) of which they are apart, highlighting a need for systems thinking in medical ethics and public health.1 2 Such thinking raises at least three sorts of questions in this context: normative questions about the locus of moral responsibility for change when a system is unjust; practical questions about how to change systems in a way that is morally appropriate without triggering unintended, potentially harmful side-effects; and epistemic questions about how to predict the multidimensional consequences of a proposed change or set of changes to an intricate social system such as healthcare.3 These questions crop up throughout the issue, as I will discuss, but my focus is the target article and linked commentaries on gender bias in the surgical profession.Hutchison (see pages 236-241) conducted in-depth interviews with 46 Australian women surgeons and surgical trainees, taking care to avoid leading questions regarding gender bias or gendered mistreatment. Nevertheless, despite minimal prompting, at least four types of gender-related concerns were described by the surgeons,whether directly or indirectly: structural bias in workplace factors, including insufficient (or stigmatised) parental leave for women, exclusion from men’s spaces (eg, changing rooms) where informal training may occur, and a dearth of senior female role models; epistemic injustices including unfair doubting of women’s surgical competence or knowledge relative to men; stereotyped expectations that women surgeons would or should shoulder the burden of medical carework, for example, by attending to patients’ emotional needs; and objectification, both by colleagues and patients, including sexual innuendo, remarks about clothing, and even outright sexual assault.Each of these concerns is disturbing on its own, and yet they do not operate in isolation. Rather, they interact … |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106206 |