Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2009) 15: 322-327. doi: 10.1192/apt.bp.108.005926
© 2009 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in APT
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Downie, R.
Right arrow Articles by Macnaughton, J.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Downie, R.
Right arrow Articles by Macnaughton, J.

In defence of professional judgement{dagger}

Robin Downie and Jane Macnaughton

Robin Downie is Emeritus Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow University. His interests include the philosophy of medicine, medical ethics and using the humanities in medical education. His most recent book (with Jane Macnaughton) is Bioethics and the Humanities: Attitudes and Perceptions. Jane Macnaughton is Director of the Centre for Arts and Humanities in Health and Medicine at Durham University. Her research interests include medical humanities, professionalism in undergraduate medical education and arts in health. She has published two books with Robin Downie, including Clinical Judgement: Evidence in Practice.

Correspondence: Correspondence Robin Downie, Emeritus Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK. Email: r.downie{at}philosophy.arts.gla.ac.uk

A judgement may be defined as an assertion made with evidence or good reason in a context of uncertainty. In psychiatry the uncertainty is inherent in the professional context and the evidence derives from academic literature and scientific studies as they are applied to a specific patient. The nature of the uncertainty and the factors that should inform professional judgement are explored in this article. Professional judgement currently faces two serious challenges: an obsession with numbers, which comes from within medicine, and the ‘patient choice’ agenda, which is politically inspired and comes from outside medicine. In this article we strive to defend professional judgement in the clinic against both challenges.


Related articles in APT:

Clinical judgement and individual patients: INVITED COMMENTARY ON ... IN DEFENCE OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT
Tim Thornton
APT 2009 15: 328-331. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

Risk and professionalism
Joe Bouch
APT 2009 15: 321. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Adv. Psychiatr. Treat.Home page
T. Thornton
Clinical judgement and individual patients: INVITED COMMENTARY ON ... IN DEFENCE OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT
Adv. Psychiatr. Treat., September 1, 2009; 15(5): 328 - 331.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]