Difference between revisions of "The logic of medical language - fr"

==Final Considerations==

The logic of language is by no means a topic for philosophers and pedagogues; but it substantially concerns a fundamental aspect of medicine that is '''Diagnosis'''. Note that the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9), has 6,969 disease codes, while there are 12,420 in ICD-10 (OMS 2013)<ref name=":0">{{cite book  

  }}</ref>. Based on the results of large series of autopsies, Leape, Berwick and Bates (2002a) estimated that diagnostic errors caused 40,000 to 80,000 deaths annually<ref>{{cite book  

  }}</ref>. Additionally, in a recent survey of over 6,000 doctors, 96% believed that diagnostic errors were preventable<ref>{{cite book  

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) was a logician and practicing scientist<ref>[[wpit:Charles_Sanders_Peircehttps://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce|Charles Sanders Peirce]]</ref>; he gradually developed a triadic account of the logic of inquiry. He also distinguishes between three forms of argumentation, types of inference and research methods that are involved in scientific inquiry, namely:

#Abduction or the generation of hypotheses

#Deduction or drawing of consequences from hypotheses; and

#Induction or hypothesis testing.

In the final part of the study conducted by Donald E Stanley and Daniel G Campos, the Peircean logic is considered as an aid to guaranteeing the effectiveness of the diagnostic passage from populations to individuals. A diagnosis focuses on the individual signs and symptoms of a disease. This manifestation cannot be extrapolated from the general population, except for a very broad experiential sense, and it is this sense of experience that provides clinical insight, strengthens the instinct to interpret perceptions, and grounds the competence that allows us to act. We acquire basic knowledge and validate experience in order to transfer our observations into the diagnosis.

In another recent study, author Pat Croskerry proposes the so-called "Adaptive Expertise in Medical Decision Making", in which a more effective clinical decision could be achieved through adaptive reasoning, leading to advanced levels of competence and mastery<ref name=":1">{{cite book  

Adaptive competencies can be obtained by emphasizing the additional features of the reasoning process:

#Be aware of the inhibitors and facilitators of rationality (Specialists are unwittingly projected towards their own scientific and clinical context).

#Pursue the standards of critical thinking. (In the specialist, self-referentiality is supported and criticisms from other scientific disciplines or from other medical specialists are hardly accepted).

#Develop a global awareness of cognitive and affective biases and learn how to mitigate them. Use argument that reinforces point 1.

#Develop a similar depth and understanding of logic and its errors by involving metacognitive processes such as reflection and awareness. Topic is already mentioned in the first chapter ‘Introduction’.

In this context, extraordinarily interesting factors emerge that lead us to a synthesis of all what has been presented in this chapter. It is true that the arguments of abduction, deduction and induction streamline the diagnostic process but we still speak of arguments based on a clinical semeiotics, that is on the symptom and/or clinical sign<ref name=":0" />. Even the adaptive experience mentioned by Pat Croskerry is refined and implemented on the diagnosis and on the errors generated by a clinical semeiotics<ref name=":1" />.

Therefore, it is necessary to specify that semeiotics and/or the specific value of clinical analysis are not being criticized because these procedures have been extraordinarily innovative in the diagnostics of all time. In the age in which we live, however, it will be due to the change in human life expectancy or the social acceleration that we are experiencing, ‘time’ has become a conditioning factor, not intended as the passing of minutes but essentially as bearer of information.

:''In this sense, the type of medical language described above, based on the symptom and on the clinical sign, is unable to anticipate the disease, not because there is no know-how, technology, innovation, etc., but because the right value is not given to the information carried over time''  

This is not the responsibility of the health worker, nor of the Health Service and nor of the political-industrial class because each of these actors does what it can do with the resources and preparation of the socio-epochal context in which it lives.

The problem, on the other hand, lies in the mindset of mankind that prefers a deterministic reality to a stochastic one. We will discuss these topics in detail.

In the following chapters, all dealing with logic, we will try to shift the attention from the symptom and clinical sign to the encrypted machine language: for the latter, the arguments of the Donald E Stanley-Daniel G Campos duo and Pat Croskerry are welcome, but are to be translated into topic ‘time’ (anticipation of the symptom) and into the message (assembler and non-verbal machine language). <!--178-->Obviously, this does not preclude the validity of the clinical history (semeiotics), essentially built on a verbal language rooted in medical reality.

We are aware that our Linux Sapiens is perplexed and wondering:{{q4|... <!--180-->could the logic of Classical language help us to solve the poor Mary Poppins' dilemma?|<!--181-->You will see that much of medical thinking is based on [[The logic of classical language|the logic of Classical language]] but there are limits}}