ArticleJournal of medical ethics2021
Epistemic injustice, children and mental illness.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A reply to "Fundamental issues in epistemic injustice in healthcare" by Nielsen, Nordgaard & Henriksen (2025) : Corresponding author.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Temporal Aspects of Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Patients with Drug Dependence.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Testimonial injustice in the treatment of children's testimonies: inconsiderate and unjust cases.Zeitschrift fur Ethik und Moralphilosophie = Journal for ethics and moral philosophy · 2025Article
- A critical analysis of UK media characterisations of Long Covid in children and young people.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Metacognition and epistemic injustice in schizophrenia.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Epistemic Injustice and Nonmaleficence.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Perspectives of French adolescents with ADHD and child and adolescent psychiatrists regarding methylphenidate use.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Mental Health Experts as Objects of Epistemic Injustice-The Case of Autism Spectrum Condition.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Staff's experiences of implementing patient-initiated brief admission for adolescents from the perspective of epistemic (in)justice.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Testimonial injustice: considering caregivers in paediatric behavioural healthcare.Journal of medical ethics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of epistemic (specifically testimonial) injustice is the latest philosophical tool with which to try to theorise what goes wrong when mental health service users are not listened to by clinicians, and what goes right when they are. Is the tool adequate to the task? It is argued that, to be applicable at all, the concept needs some adjustment so that being disbelieved as a result of prejudice is one of a family of alternative necessary conditions for its application, rather than a necessary condition all on its own. It is then argued that even once adjusted in this way, the concept does not fit well in the area where the biggest efforts have been made to apply it so far, namely the highly sensitive case of adult patients suffering from delusions. Indeed it does not serve the interests of service users struggling for recognition to try to apply it in this context, because there is so much more to being listened to than simply being believed. However, the concept is found to apply smoothly in many cases where the service users are children, for example, in relation to children's testimony on the efficacy of treatment. It is suggested that further research would demonstrate the usefulness of the concept in adult cases of a similar kind.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34172522What 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.