ArticleTheoretical medicine and bioethics2015
Phronesis as an ideal in professional medical ethics: some preliminary positionings and problematics.
Article in Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- It is Prudent to Declare all Possible Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Publishing: An Ambiguous Example From COVID-19.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Seeking medical wisdom: Development of a physician-defined practical model of wise competence.Medical education · 2025Review
- A Critical Interpretive Literature Review of Phronesis in Medicine.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2025Review
- Challenges Facing the Appeal to Practical Wisdom in Medicine and Beyond.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2025Article
- The fundamental role of storytelling and practical wisdom in facilitating the ethics education of junior doctors.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2021Article
- 'I found myself a despicable being!': Medical students face disturbing moral dilemmas.Medical education · 2021Article
- Using practical wisdom to facilitate ethical decision-making: a major empirical study of phronesis in the decision narratives of doctors.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Professional Medical Discourse and the Emergence of Practical Wisdom in Everyday Practices: Analysis of a Keyhole Case.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2020Article
- Phronesis in Medical Ethics: Courage and Motivation to Keep on the Track of Rightness in Decision-Making.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2020Article
- Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation: A Phronetic Perspective.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Practical wisdom in complex medical practices: a critical proposal.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Virtue in Medical Practice: An Exploratory Study.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phronesis has become a buzzword in contemporary medical ethics. Yet, the use of this single term conceals a number of significant conceptual controversies based on divergent philosophical assumptions. This paper explores three of them: on phronesis as universalist or relativist, generalist or particularist, and natural/painless or painful/ambivalent. It also reveals tensions between Alasdair MacIntyre's take on phronesis, typically drawn upon in professional ethics discourses, and Aristotle's original concept. The paper offers these four binaries as a possible analytical framework for classifying and evaluating accounts of phronesis in the medical ethics literature. It argues that to make sense of phronesis as a putative ideal in professional medical ethics--for example, with the further aim of crafting interventions to cultivate phronesis in medical ethics education--the preliminary question of which conception of phronesis is most serviceable for the aim in question needs to be answered. The paper identifies considerable lack of clarity in the current discursive field on phronesis and suggests how that shortcoming can be ameliorated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26387119What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.