Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 1999;2(2):141-59.
doi: 10.1023/a:1009941101276.

The aesthetics of clinical judgment: exploring the link between diagnostic elegance and effective resource utilization

Affiliations
Review

The aesthetics of clinical judgment: exploring the link between diagnostic elegance and effective resource utilization

G Khushf. Med Health Care Philos. 1999.

Abstract

Many physicians assert that new cost-control mechanisms inappropriately interfere with clinical decision-making. They claim that high costs arise from poorly practiced medicine, and argue that effective utilization of resources is best promoted by advancing the scientific and ethical ideals of medicine. However, the claim is not warranted by empirical evidence. In this essay, I show how it rests upon aesthetic considerations associated with diagnostic elegance. I first consider scientific rationality generally. After a review of analytical empiricist and socio-historical approaches in the philosophy of science, a form of Kant's aesthetic is used to explain how scientific discovery and justification are linked, and to show how meta-theoretical considerations associated with the goals and method of science work together with exemplars of practice. This analysis enables us to understand how the ideals of medicine as a science guide the initial patient history and physical exam in such a way that a parsimonious use of tests is indicated. Aesthetic considerations unite the basic scientific and ethical commitments of the modern medical paradigm and are central for rightly understanding clinical judgment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. J Med Philos. 1998 Feb;23(1):98-122 - PubMed
    1. JAMA. 1998 Sep 23-30;280(12):1102-8 - PubMed
    1. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987 Feb;17(1):S12-3 - PubMed
    1. Am J Psychiatry. 1980 May;137(5):535-44 - PubMed
    1. Hosp Prog. 1978 Aug;59(8):50-5 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources