Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40828271›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025

Doing philosophy and the future of the 'good doctor' paradigm.

Faye Tucker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Faye TuckerLancaster Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Health Innovation One, Sir John Fisher Drive, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4AT, UK. f.tucker3@lancaster.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4128-4746

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The author argues for the substantive doing of philosophy (as opposed to learning about it) as part of medical training. The paper presents a view of medical education as diminishing the critical thinking skills and humanistic values of future clinicians in favour of fact-recall and pattern recognition. This is due to increasingly assessment-driven curriculums and the need to meet extremely high, and rigorous, institutional and industry/sector standards. The author argues that current medical training favours a particular kind of learning, and therefore produces a particular kind of clinician, that may meet these standards and thrive in competitive and high-pressure practice but may not be best for patients. Furthermore, as artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies rapidly change the landscape of medicine, current medical training may also not be best for these clinicians. The 'good doctors' that we are currently training, face a 'survival of the fittest situation' whereby they are no longer able to survive in a changing landscape, and therefore medical education is failing our future 'good doctors'. Changes to the content and delivery of medical education need to happen now to mitigate this failing and give doctors: first, what they need to survive; and second, what they need to properly care for patients in a changing industry, increasingly served by AI. Doing philosophy has the potential to cultivate the thinking skills, inter-personal skills, personal attributes, and humanistic values needed by the 'good doctor' of the future.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalPhilosophy, MedicalPhysiciansArtificial IntelligenceCurriculumHumanismHumansArtificial intelligenceDoctor-patient relationshipMedical educationPhilosophical pedagogy

Identifiers

PMID40828271
PMCPMC12583344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.