Attitudinalism in Medicine

[Mark Graber]

One of things that struck me when I was in physical therapy for a wrist
injury was the way in which doctors and physical therapists disputed the
best treatment for recovery.  There was agreement on some matters, but
what exercises I had to do in any given week seemed to me to be as much
a function of the doctor I saw as anything else.  And, I gather from
such works as Frank and Frank, PERSUASION AND HEALING (detailing the
variety of psychotherapies) that the same is true in much medicine, that
there are areas of agreement and disagreement in the treatment of
injury, disease and disorder.  My query is this: to the best of my
knowledge, no attitudinal model exists in medicine. That is to say,
people understand that there are good faith disagreements as to what
constitutes appropriate medical treament and that, within very
contestable boundaries (witness malpractice cases), doctors who engage
in these treatments are engaged in the practice of medicine.  I could
tell an analogous story about the proper way to open a chess game, or
about bridge bidding contests.  So, what puzzles me is why
non-practicing legal scholars should take a different tack with respect
to the law, dividing the world into law and attitude.

Mark A. Graber

>>> Scott Gerber <s-gerber at onu.edu> 06/06/06 10:19 AM >>>
Mark G:

Law, at least from a foundationalist perspective, doesn't recognize 
"plausible constitutional arguments on both sides of an issue."  I 
agree that most academic lawyers, and their colleagues in the 
humanities and social sciences, believe otherwise--that law is all 
about "argument," to quote Dworkin--but that wasn't the tack I was 
taking with my posts.  In fact, my point was the opposite.

Scott G