Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42174335›Full record

ArticleTheoretical medicine and bioethics2026

Practical wisdom in medicine: defending a multidimensional, integrated view of an indispensable virtue.

Lauris C Kaldjian, Kristján Kristjánsson, Shane McLoughlin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Lauris C KaldjianProgram in Bioethics and Humanities, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, 1-106 MEB, 500 Newton Road, 52242, Iowa City, USA. lauris-kaldjian@uiowa.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9170-6986
Kristján KristjánssonJubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8584-4178
Shane McLoughlinJubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2354-5439

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

By defending practical wisdom (phronesis) as a multidimensional virtue that complements the moral virtues, we offer a critique of "practical wisdom eliminativism", with special attention to the context of medicine, arguing that the core dimensions of practical wisdom enjoy broad consensus. As the meta-virtue that demonstrates excellence in ethical decision-making, practical wisdom recognizes and employs the best means to achieve good and worthwhile ends by integrating goals, perception of context, moral virtues, deliberation, reason-guided emotion, and motivation. In medicine, practical wisdom encompasses patient-centered deliberation directed toward ends of health and flourishing that promote the patient's good. To counter the notion that practical wisdom is a redundant concept (the eliminativist view), we provide philosophical arguments, evidence from medical practitioners, and psychometric data from a detailed empirical study of US and UK adults. Practical wisdom has survived for more than 2300 years as a unified and unifying intellectual meta-virtue that guides the moral virtues. We believe the reasons we put forward explain why phronesis should be expected to endure as a meaningful, multidimensional concept reflecting the nature of moral deliberation in response to practical challenges in life and medicine.

Indexed as

Decision MakingKnowledgeMoralsVirtuesEthics, MedicalHumansPhilosophy, MedicalAristotelian standard modelMedicineNetwork analysisPhronesis eliminativismPractical wisdom (phronesis)Virtue ethics

Identifiers

PMID42174335
PMCPMC13646001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.