Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Out of Hours

An A–Z of medical philosophy

O is for ontology

David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (620): 144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X677581
David Misselbrook
Dean Emeritus of the Royal Society of Medicine, Faculty President FHPMP the Society of Apothecaries, Senior Lecturer in Family Medicine RCSI Medical University of Bahrain and BJGP Senior Ethics Advisor.
Roles: GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

OK, every tribe likes to reserve some language for its own use and polish up a few long words to keep the barbarians at bay. Philosophers are no different, but not as bad as medics. ‘Ontology’ is the study of what types or categories of things might reasonably be thought to exist in the world itself as opposed to just our imagined ways of thinking about things.

Talking about planks of wood and body tissue is easy — they seem to exist in the world as it is in itself — we can cut them, we can measure them, we notice when they go wrong. But what about ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? Are they real categories in the world? They are certainly not real categories in the world of matter but neither is the experience of seeing the colour red — it exists within our mind only but is no less real for that. Might right and wrong be real categories in the human world, which is part of the whole world, or do we just invent them as we talk?

Similarly neuroscientists accept the reality of neurons but many will want to dispute whether there is really such a thing as ‘mind’ other than as a way of talking about certain apparent experiences that are generated by those neurons.

And what about diseases? Lung cancer would have a good claim to be a thing in the world itself, a different thing from normal lung tissue. But we talk about hypertension in the same way as we talk about lung cancer, talking it into being a disease rather than a risk factor when in the world itself all we see is a continuous distribution curve of blood pressure measurements. Similarly, is personality disorder a separate category like schizophrenia, with a pathology to be found in the world itself, or is it simply a way of talking about personal characteristics at one end of a normal distribution curve?

Why might this matter? As doctors we usually use a biomedical model. We tend to see problems within a disease model. We have a habit of thinking of categories such as personality disorder or hypertension as separate entities that are abnormal, as if they were diseases. We therefore automatically feel they need fixing rather than seeing them as normal variation that might sometimes cause problems or pose risks.

If we take enough measurements then all of us are going to be more than one or even two standard deviations from the norm on some of them. We need to be a bit more careful about labelling normal variation as disease unless we want to medicalise the whole world. This is not to argue that some risk factors may not be significant enough to require treatment but it does emphasise the need to make a persuasive case rather than just lazily label something as a disease thus justifying automatic treatment.

Ontology does not help to solve this problem. However, it does remind us to think through issues more clearly. It alerts us to where doctors might be making medical problems rather than solving them.

CPD further study and reflective notes

The notes in Boxes 1 and 2 will help you to read and reflect further on any of the brief articles in this series. If this learning relates to your professional development then you should put it in your annual PDP and claim self-certified CPD points within the RCGP guidelines set out at http://bit.ly/UT5Z3V.

Box 1. Reflective notes

  • Are we always clear in our own minds about the difference between diseases, risk factors and normal distribution of human characteristics?

  • And are we clear with patients when we discuss these things? How could we do better?

Box 2. Further reading

Primary source: Hofweber T. Logic and Ontology. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Zalta EN (ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/logic-ontology/ (accessed 14 Jan 2014).

Further study: Misselbrook D. Thinking about patients. Milton Keynes: Radcliffe, 2001: Chapter 7.

If your reading and reflection is occasional and opportunistic, claims in this one area should not exceed 10 CPD credits per year. However if you decide to use this material to develop your understanding of medical philosophy and ethics as a significant part of a PDP, say over 2 years, then a larger number of credits can be claimed so long as there is evidence of balance over a 5-year cycle. These credits should demonstrate the impact of your reflection on your practice (for example, by way of case studies or other evidence), and must be validated by your appraiser.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2014
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 64 (620)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 64, Issue 620
March 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
An A–Z of medical philosophy
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
An A–Z of medical philosophy
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (620): 144. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X677581

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
An A–Z of medical philosophy
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (620): 144. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X677581
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • CPD further study and reflective notes
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Can compassion help cure health-related disorders?
  • Nature works: why don’t we? How living systems can inform the design of effective primary care
  • Bad Medicine: Medical student numbers
Show more Out of Hours

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

Tweets by @BJGPjournal

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242