At first glance, presenting an argument against empathy seems counterintuitive. However, Bloom’s argument is against a narrowly defined form of empathy restricted to the affective domain.
Much of the research and debate around empathy is hampered by the muddle surrounding the definition of this nuanced concept and this book adds to this conceptual confusion. The author’s concept of empathy is more aligned to sympathy, which is linked to causing personal distress and burnout. His subtitle to the book ‘Rational Compassion’, which he supports, is attuned with current thinking on empathy as a broad concept that has cognitive, affective, moral, and behavioural aspects.
Bloom adopts a utilitarian approach to ethics and empathy, which many doctors may find difficult to reconcile with their clinical practice. Empathy in clinical medicine involves individuals in a face-to--face encounter; it is a relational concept. Bloom argues that, because empathy may be biased towards people we like, it is not a force for moral good. Many might argue that empathy attempts to be non-judgemental and forms a bridge across cultural and ethnic divisions.
Empathy is not simply a cognitive or an affective phenomenon, but a combination of the two in varying amounts according to the clinical situation. Bloom’s controversial title and ethos on empathy may be more relevant to the current politics in the US than to medical practice in this country.
- © British Journal of General Practice 2017