Cargando…

Normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation

BACKGROUND: Normality is both a descriptive and a normative concept. Undoubtedly, the normal often operates normatively as an exclusionary tool of cultural authority. While it has prominently found its way into the field of medicine, it remains rather unclear in what sense it is used. Thus, our stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rost, Michael, Favaretto, Maddalena, De Clercq, Eva
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9768910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36539749
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13010-022-00127-z
_version_ 1784854273189740544
author Rost, Michael
Favaretto, Maddalena
De Clercq, Eva
author_facet Rost, Michael
Favaretto, Maddalena
De Clercq, Eva
author_sort Rost, Michael
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Normality is both a descriptive and a normative concept. Undoubtedly, the normal often operates normatively as an exclusionary tool of cultural authority. While it has prominently found its way into the field of medicine, it remains rather unclear in what sense it is used. Thus, our study sought to elucidate people’s understanding of normality in medicine and to identify concepts that are linked to it. METHODS: Using convenient sampling, we carried out a cross-sectional survey. Since the survey was advertised through social media, we employed an online survey. We performed descriptive and inferential analyses. Predictors were chosen in a theory-driven manner. RESULTS: In total, 323 persons from 21 countries completed the survey. Analysis revealed that the overall acceptance of normality in medicine was associated with notions of injustice, authority, discrimination, and with having a medical profession. More precisely, for the field of mental health, injustice insensitivity, genderism and transphobia, and authority were positively associated with a person’s acceptance of normality; and, for the field of physical health, injustice insensitivity and having a medical profession were positively associated with a person’s acceptance of normality. Finally, participants’ acceptance of the use of normality in the area of mental health was lower than in the area of physical health. CONCLUSIONS: What is considered normal has implications for clinical practice, both at an individual and at a policy-level. Acknowledging its normalistic condition, the discipline of medicine has to confront itself with its own contribution to the augmentation of social inequalities through the excessive reliance on the concept of normality. Research that centers the lived experiences of those who are being systematically marginalized because they are deemed abnormal is needed. By empirically elucidating the conceptual relationships between normality in medicine and other variables, we provide points of leverage to deprive normality of its normative power. For medicine, this is needed to first do no harm. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13010-022-00127-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9768910
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97689102022-12-22 Normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation Rost, Michael Favaretto, Maddalena De Clercq, Eva Philos Ethics Humanit Med Research BACKGROUND: Normality is both a descriptive and a normative concept. Undoubtedly, the normal often operates normatively as an exclusionary tool of cultural authority. While it has prominently found its way into the field of medicine, it remains rather unclear in what sense it is used. Thus, our study sought to elucidate people’s understanding of normality in medicine and to identify concepts that are linked to it. METHODS: Using convenient sampling, we carried out a cross-sectional survey. Since the survey was advertised through social media, we employed an online survey. We performed descriptive and inferential analyses. Predictors were chosen in a theory-driven manner. RESULTS: In total, 323 persons from 21 countries completed the survey. Analysis revealed that the overall acceptance of normality in medicine was associated with notions of injustice, authority, discrimination, and with having a medical profession. More precisely, for the field of mental health, injustice insensitivity, genderism and transphobia, and authority were positively associated with a person’s acceptance of normality; and, for the field of physical health, injustice insensitivity and having a medical profession were positively associated with a person’s acceptance of normality. Finally, participants’ acceptance of the use of normality in the area of mental health was lower than in the area of physical health. CONCLUSIONS: What is considered normal has implications for clinical practice, both at an individual and at a policy-level. Acknowledging its normalistic condition, the discipline of medicine has to confront itself with its own contribution to the augmentation of social inequalities through the excessive reliance on the concept of normality. Research that centers the lived experiences of those who are being systematically marginalized because they are deemed abnormal is needed. By empirically elucidating the conceptual relationships between normality in medicine and other variables, we provide points of leverage to deprive normality of its normative power. For medicine, this is needed to first do no harm. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13010-022-00127-z. BioMed Central 2022-12-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9768910/ /pubmed/36539749 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13010-022-00127-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Rost, Michael
Favaretto, Maddalena
De Clercq, Eva
Normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation
title Normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation
title_full Normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation
title_fullStr Normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation
title_full_unstemmed Normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation
title_short Normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation
title_sort normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9768910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36539749
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13010-022-00127-z
work_keys_str_mv AT rostmichael normalityinmedicineanempiricalelucidation
AT favarettomaddalena normalityinmedicineanempiricalelucidation
AT declercqeva normalityinmedicineanempiricalelucidation