The Coherence of Language? Attending Practically to our "Ways with Words" in Medicine and Bioethics
Matthew Vest, PhD, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH and St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, NYC, NY; Tyler Tate, MD, MA, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR; Abram Brummett, PhD, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MN; and Martin Fitzgerald, PhD, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Most human endeavors require and assume so much of language that it can seem odd even to draw attention to language. Like the water surrounding marine life or the air we breath, language often simply seems unquestionably “there” as even something of a condition for humanity. Asking about the depth of language—using words—can be ironic or puzzling, and yet for disciplines such as medicine and bioethics the importance of our language requires much attention and respect.
The Greek roots of the word “euthanasia,” for instance, draw attention to the good death, and yet the notion of “good death” itself does little in medical and ethical frameworks given the needed secondary terms—passive, active, voluntary, non-voluntary, etc—that then lead to further distinctions. Or, we might consider how the language of medical “rounds” has changed from physicians walking around to visit patients; “grand rounds” even implied seeing all patients under care. The time with patients was the primary thing, and yet now rounds include perhaps less time with patients and more time in hallways or conference rooms with attending or resident physicians, students and others. “Grand rounds” now take place without any living patients present as an academic exercise that Frank Neelon suggests must surely be at odds with William Osler’s mantra: “No teaching without a patient for a text.” Forgoing the good or not of seeing a patient as a “text,” what Neelon ponders most is if the shifting language (and praxis) of rounds illustrates the danger for “the HumptyDumptification of medical discourse” en toto: “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less’” (Neelon, 2016).
Much good comes from careful attention to the etymology of terms, categories, and frameworks, yet this panel session proposes to examine language on a deeper level by asking two primary questions: first, what does the use of language itself in medicine and bioethics reveal about the nature of our medical and bioethical practices? Secondly, what does our use of language in medicine and bioethics reveal about the nature of language itself? For this second question, we do not assume to uncover a deep philosophy that seeks the “essence” of language, admitting freely that such a positive knowledge of language (kataphasis), while interesting and even enchanting in theory, is unlikely to connect or harmonize well with the practical nature of medicine and bioethics. Rather, we propose to trace the question regarding language itself as a way to explore the impact of what we do not know about language (apophasis) changes the form of our expectations for language.
Amidst these frameworks of language (and more), religious and theological implications arise quickly. Where some linguists have suggested suffering is the root of language, the Buddhist way of life teaches that language is all-encompassing beyond words and sounds themselves. For Muslims, the Holy Qur’an contains God’s words that are best heard through Qur’anic Arabic. For traditional Christians, Christ is the Logos, the incarnate word who fulfills the Mosaic law, quotes the Psalmist, prophets, and more, yet “speaks” even more in His body through the passion.
Within this broad framework on language, this panel presentation brings together four scholars with expertise in medicine, philosophy, and theology who see “attending to our words” as a way to bridge higher reflections with practical realities. One panelist will explore how medical language, insofar as it focuses on concepts like “dignity” and “respect”, implicitly points to and displays what Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson calls a “narrative of love.” By interrogating this narrative, the panelist will demonstrate how, baked within Western medical culture, is a pervasive, and often unaddressed, existentialist yearning for healing and redemption from despair. Another panelist brings perspective from disbelief; as an atheist, he suggests that the language of secular bioethical consensus is a work of moral bricolage that contains important insights from religious voices that will be vital for critically engaging with current and future ethical challenges. The third panelists asks what it means to use language to speak to, and on behalf of, non-human animals. He argues that this asymmetry of language problematizes our relation to the spiritual reality of the animal other. The last panelist draws attention to “scaled modes” within Orthodox Christian life that give meaning to human habits and practices as modus vivendi, or ways of life that may further union with God through the concrete here and now.
The Greek roots of the word “euthanasia,” for instance, draw attention to the good death, and yet the notion of “good death” itself does little in medical and ethical frameworks given the needed secondary terms—passive, active, voluntary, non-voluntary, etc—that then lead to further distinctions. Or, we might consider how the language of medical “rounds” has changed from physicians walking around to visit patients; “grand rounds” even implied seeing all patients under care. The time with patients was the primary thing, and yet now rounds include perhaps less time with patients and more time in hallways or conference rooms with attending or resident physicians, students and others. “Grand rounds” now take place without any living patients present as an academic exercise that Frank Neelon suggests must surely be at odds with William Osler’s mantra: “No teaching without a patient for a text.” Forgoing the good or not of seeing a patient as a “text,” what Neelon ponders most is if the shifting language (and praxis) of rounds illustrates the danger for “the HumptyDumptification of medical discourse” en toto: “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less’” (Neelon, 2016).
Much good comes from careful attention to the etymology of terms, categories, and frameworks, yet this panel session proposes to examine language on a deeper level by asking two primary questions: first, what does the use of language itself in medicine and bioethics reveal about the nature of our medical and bioethical practices? Secondly, what does our use of language in medicine and bioethics reveal about the nature of language itself? For this second question, we do not assume to uncover a deep philosophy that seeks the “essence” of language, admitting freely that such a positive knowledge of language (kataphasis), while interesting and even enchanting in theory, is unlikely to connect or harmonize well with the practical nature of medicine and bioethics. Rather, we propose to trace the question regarding language itself as a way to explore the impact of what we do not know about language (apophasis) changes the form of our expectations for language.
Amidst these frameworks of language (and more), religious and theological implications arise quickly. Where some linguists have suggested suffering is the root of language, the Buddhist way of life teaches that language is all-encompassing beyond words and sounds themselves. For Muslims, the Holy Qur’an contains God’s words that are best heard through Qur’anic Arabic. For traditional Christians, Christ is the Logos, the incarnate word who fulfills the Mosaic law, quotes the Psalmist, prophets, and more, yet “speaks” even more in His body through the passion.
Within this broad framework on language, this panel presentation brings together four scholars with expertise in medicine, philosophy, and theology who see “attending to our words” as a way to bridge higher reflections with practical realities. One panelist will explore how medical language, insofar as it focuses on concepts like “dignity” and “respect”, implicitly points to and displays what Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson calls a “narrative of love.” By interrogating this narrative, the panelist will demonstrate how, baked within Western medical culture, is a pervasive, and often unaddressed, existentialist yearning for healing and redemption from despair. Another panelist brings perspective from disbelief; as an atheist, he suggests that the language of secular bioethical consensus is a work of moral bricolage that contains important insights from religious voices that will be vital for critically engaging with current and future ethical challenges. The third panelists asks what it means to use language to speak to, and on behalf of, non-human animals. He argues that this asymmetry of language problematizes our relation to the spiritual reality of the animal other. The last panelist draws attention to “scaled modes” within Orthodox Christian life that give meaning to human habits and practices as modus vivendi, or ways of life that may further union with God through the concrete here and now.