Evidence Live (www.evidencelive.org) is an international conference aimed at addressing and attempting to solve problems within EBM, and is also a forum for criticisms of EBM. Philosophers of medicine interested in attending (and participating in) this conference are welcome. Through the efforts of Jeremy Howick, the International Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable has become an associate member of the Evidence Life conference. This enables members of the International Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable to register for this rather expensive conference at special rates, opportunities available are:
- Individual full access at full rate– £365 (Saving £160) this offer closes 06/04/2015
- Individual full access Monday only – £195 (Saving £80)
Individual full access Tuesday only – £175 (Saving £75)
If you are interested in registering for this conference, and would like to know more please contact Ruth Davis(email@example.com) letting her know that you are a member of the International Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable.
Co-Sponsored by the British Society for the Philosophy of Science and the Centre for the Humanities and Health, King’s College London
20 June 2014, 9:00am – 5:15 pm, King’s College London
Luis Flores (King’s) and Jonathan Fuller (Toronto) – “The Risk GP Model: The Standard Approach to Prediction in Healthcare”
Alex Broadbent (Johannesburg) – “Is Stability a Stable Category in Medical Epistemology?”
Maël Lemoine (Tours) – “Prediction from Preclinical Studies. The Tragic Case of TGN1412”
Barbara Osimani (Camerino) – “Safety Signals and Causal Information in Pharmacology: Evidence for Harm Prediction from Phase 0 to 4”
Federica Russo (Ferrara) – “The Integration of Social and Biological Mechanisms for Healthcare Prediction and Intervention”
Elselijn Kingma (Southampton) – TBA
Jacob Stegenga (Utah) – “Measuring Effectiveness”
Jeremy Howick (Oxford) – “Using Grünbaum’s Definition of Placebos to Improve the Predictive Power of Placebo Controlled Trials”
About the Workshop
Predicting what will happen is a central concern in epidemiology, health policy, public health, and clinical practice. Predictions are made about prognosis, about the benefits and harms of interventions and other exposures, about populations, and about individuals. The theme of prediction is also of growing interest in the philosophy of medicine, and includes topics such as: measuring the effectiveness of interventions; extrapolating from clinical research studies; applying average results to individuals; the use of mechanisms, causal models or animal models to predict; probabilities and predictions. The principle aim of this workshop is to bring together scholars working on various projects on prediction in order to further develop this important theme in the philosophy of medicine.
Registration for the workshop is free but mandatory. Space will be limited. For questions or to register contact Jonathan Fuller (firstname.lastname@example.org).
11 June 2013
Department of Philosophy, 9 Woodland Road, Bristol
We intend to commence at 10.00. The workshop will take place in the Philosophy Common Room, Ground Floor, 9 Woodland Road. The programme is not quite finalised and we may have an additional speaker.
Stephen Senn (Centre de Recherche Public de la Santé, Luxembourg) “Being a statistician means never having to say you’re certain”
David Papineau (Department of Philosophy, King’s College, London) “What kind of causes do randomized trials tell us about?”
George Davey-Smith (MRC Centre for Causal Analyses in Translational Epidemiology, Bristol) “Origins of ‘fair tests’ of treatment in the late 19th century: how and why”
John Worrall (Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics) “Removing the ‘mask’: a clear-eyed view of the virtues of “blinding” in clinical trials”
Alexander Bird (Department of Philosophy, Bristol) “From Mill’s Method of Difference to randomization in the logic of comparative trials”
Symposium at the Brocher Foundation, Geneva, 4-5 July 2013
Speakers: Alex Broadbent, Nancy Cartwright, Michael Marmot, Alfredo Morabia, Justin Parkhurst, Anya Plutinski, Jacob Stegenga, and Sridhar Venkatapuram.
ABOUT THE SYMPOSIUM
Health care financing and provision is undergoing a crisis around the world. In Europe, the cost of medical care are increasing, along with levels of national spending on healthcare. Moreover the rate of increase exceeds the rate of regional economic growth. Something must be done, but it is far from clear what is the right political or social response. In much of the developing world, on the other hand, the situation is the reverse: increases in prosperity, particularly in the BRICS countries, have not been accompanied by significant healthcare investment; or else significant healthcare investment has benefited only a small portion of society. South Africa, for example, has some of the best medical care in the world, but it is not available to the majority of the population, and preventable morbidity and mortality remains shockingly high. And in North America, there are both high medical costs and highly unequal access, something which the present government has spent considerable political capital attempting to remedy. In short, there is very little apparent agreement on how a healthcare system should be organized in order to be effective, efficient, and equitable, despite a near-universal acceptance that health is both morally and economically important to individual and national wellbeing.
Against this backdrop, this symposium is convened to examine the philosophical underpinnings of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Public and political debate about healthcare reform inevitably focuses on who should pay and who should provide. This workshop, however, seeks to address the prior question of what works: what healthcare measures are effective for improving population health, how we know they have been effective, and what evidence we need before confidently deploying them in a given sociopolitical setting. Indeed, much of the tumult surrounding health care reform can only be understood when health policy is seen to share important common elements with other public policies. It is not determined only by scientific evidence, nor must it answer only to that evidence. It is also variously influenced by legal rights, bureaucratic norms, political negotiations, and market mechanism, and it must balance these forces against the scientific evidence for effectiveness. In this workshop we focus on the way scientific evidence fits into this complex sociopolitical setting: how it can, how in fact it does, and how it ought to influence healthcare reform.
In particular, the symposium has the following goals:
- To understand the notions of effectiveness, efficiency and equity as they are and ought to be employed in healthcare reform. Especially, to identify the normative implications of the first two, and to clarify the third.
- To assess the use of systematic reviews to drive healthcare reform. Especially, to bring together the various criticisms of their use, to identify evidence (if any) for their effectiveness, and to arrive at a clear “best practice” recommendation for the use of evidence in healthcare reform.
- To highlight the challenges facing developing countries attempting healthcare reform. Especially, to identify novel ways in which social determinants of health and disease might be managed as part of healthcare reform, and to specify the evidence necessary for such measures.
To register, visit http://www.brocher.ch/en/events/evidence-in-healthcare-reform/
The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Series of Special Thematic Issues on the Philosophy of Medicine
Since its inaugural issue in 1976, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy has been at the very center of critical debate in the philosophy of medicine, and papers on all aspects of the topic are always welcome. Additionally, we invite essays for a series of special thematic issues that focus on Clinical Reasoning and Evidence Based Medicine. Authors may address any of a wide range of topics, including
> what counts as evidence and how it is used
> critical analysis of applications of decision theory; the role of artificial decision support systems as replacements for, or augmentations of, clinician decision making
> integration of empirical/behavioral and conceptual/logical aspects of reasoning
> use of case studies in medical reasoning to address long-standing problems in the philosophy of science
> causal inference in medicine
> what is meant by “mechanistic reasoning”, and why this is criticized in some accounts of evidence based medicine
> implications of the systems turn (e.g., associated with Institute of Medicine reports on error and quality) for the way clinical reasoning is understood
> the social epistemology of health care practices
> ways information science and technology alter/inform clinical reasoning
> a philosophical analysis of psychological accounts of medical reasoning, including work on heuristics and biases
> the nature, function, and logic of “taking a patient history”
> nature of differential diagnosis, and the way disease taxonomies structure clinical reasoning and decision making
> scope and limits of Bayesian accounts of clinical reasoning
> use of operations/ human factors/ systems engineering and/or management sciences to “manage” clinical reasoning and decision making
> the appropriateness of using formal accounts as normative for clinical reasoning
> the nature of clinical competence and capacities, and the role an analysis of capacities might play in understanding the reasoning process
> what of importance might be lost (if anything) with efforts to make fully explicit the “art” of clinical reasoning and judgment.
To help with planning future issues, potential contributors are encouraged to send tentative topics and/or titles to the editors. This, however, is not a prerequisite for inclusion in upcoming issues, and all essays will be vetted through the same peer review process. Essays should be prepared for blinded peer review, with author and identifying information appearing only on a cover sheet, and submitted to both George Khushf and Ana Iltis (emails listed above).
Papers may be up to 25-35 typed double spaced pages in length, including notes and references, although that is only a rough guideline. Longer treatments of key topics may be considered. Papers should conform to Journal style:
Deadline for the first issue in this series: August 15, 2012.
Other essays on the philosophy of medicine that do not fit with the special topics theme should be sent directly to the editorial office of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy at email@example.com.
A symposium on Causality in/and Medicine will be held at the Conference on Logic and Philosophy of Science (CLPS13), 16-18 September 2013, at Ghent University, Belgium.
The concept of causality is of central importance to (the philosophy of) medicine. In medical diagnosis one infers from the presence of a set of symptoms to the possible diseases by which they may be caused. A central goal of medical research is to find the cause(s) of diseases. A central tenet of evidence-based medicine is that drugs and therapies should be tested for their causal effectiveness (and possible side-effects, etc.) on the basis of solid and reliable evidence. We invite contributions in which the relations between causality and medicine are explored. Which concept of causality best suits medical practice? What is the use of causal knowledge in medicine? What evidence can be used to infer causal relations in medicine? etc.