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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |