When Healthcare Professionals and Patients Lack a Shared Faith: Toward a Socratic Model
Trevor Bibler, PhD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine
Healthcare professionals who lack a shared faith with their patients are justifiably reluctant to discuss religious, spiritual, and theological concepts. Given the secular-scientific disposition of many healthcare professionals in the West, some might: rely on formal spiritual assessments tools (e.g., the Brief RCOPE) for assistance, request that other healthcare professionals (especially chaplains) speak with the patient, or politely ignore the concepts. While these responses might be expedient in some circumstances, they are inadequate if healthcare professionals wish to integrate the patient’s values into shared decision making.
In this paper presentation, I investigate the possibility that Socrates (c. 470-399 b.c.e) might serve as a model for an inquiry-driven approach. This approach assists healthcare professionals when responding to patients and families who employ religious language. I draw upon a number of Plato’s (c. 424-347 b.c.e.) dialogues with the hypothesis that Socrates’ inquiry-based philosophical methods and attitude can assist contemporary healthcare professionals with this challenge.
I argue that despite the historical distance and ironical tone, Socratic inquiry is helpful on two fronts. First, the Socratic process of "elenchus" is especially instructive. Readers will find common elements to the "elenchus" process: it begins with Socrates’ interlocutor making a knowledge claim that Socrates wishes to investigate. The analogue in our context occurs when a patient employs a religious or spiritual concept. Socrates then asks his interlocutors what they mean by this term. It is at this point that contemporary healthcare professionals might inquire into the patient’s commitments surrounding religious or spiritual concepts and practices. The healthcare professional should aim at a better understanding of what the patient might mean when they say, “My community doesn’t allow withholding dialysis” or “I am hoping for a miracle.” Learning from Socrates, the healthcare professional should ask open-ended questions with the goal of understanding their interlocutor’s commitments.
Second, Socrates shows curiosity and attention to an admirable degree. He also exhibits epistemic humility by never claiming to be an expert, and never claiming to have knowledge he does not have. Such a disposition might serve healthcare professionals in many areas, but when discussing issues related to faith, this attitude might be especially beneficial. The healthcare professional inspired by Socrates does not have to completely set aside their own commitments; instead, while investigating essential religious or spiritual ideas and practices, they attempt to understanding the patient’s perspective on these issues.
Socrates is not a paragon of bias-free inquiry. He has a personal agenda that few in healthcare share. I end the presentation by delineating a few ways in which Socrates do not deserve emulation. Specifically, I discuss his sarcasm and tendency to leave people embarrassed.
In this paper presentation, I investigate the possibility that Socrates (c. 470-399 b.c.e) might serve as a model for an inquiry-driven approach. This approach assists healthcare professionals when responding to patients and families who employ religious language. I draw upon a number of Plato’s (c. 424-347 b.c.e.) dialogues with the hypothesis that Socrates’ inquiry-based philosophical methods and attitude can assist contemporary healthcare professionals with this challenge.
I argue that despite the historical distance and ironical tone, Socratic inquiry is helpful on two fronts. First, the Socratic process of "elenchus" is especially instructive. Readers will find common elements to the "elenchus" process: it begins with Socrates’ interlocutor making a knowledge claim that Socrates wishes to investigate. The analogue in our context occurs when a patient employs a religious or spiritual concept. Socrates then asks his interlocutors what they mean by this term. It is at this point that contemporary healthcare professionals might inquire into the patient’s commitments surrounding religious or spiritual concepts and practices. The healthcare professional should aim at a better understanding of what the patient might mean when they say, “My community doesn’t allow withholding dialysis” or “I am hoping for a miracle.” Learning from Socrates, the healthcare professional should ask open-ended questions with the goal of understanding their interlocutor’s commitments.
Second, Socrates shows curiosity and attention to an admirable degree. He also exhibits epistemic humility by never claiming to be an expert, and never claiming to have knowledge he does not have. Such a disposition might serve healthcare professionals in many areas, but when discussing issues related to faith, this attitude might be especially beneficial. The healthcare professional inspired by Socrates does not have to completely set aside their own commitments; instead, while investigating essential religious or spiritual ideas and practices, they attempt to understanding the patient’s perspective on these issues.
Socrates is not a paragon of bias-free inquiry. He has a personal agenda that few in healthcare share. I end the presentation by delineating a few ways in which Socrates do not deserve emulation. Specifically, I discuss his sarcasm and tendency to leave people embarrassed.