Scholarlink

<p>While Gauld et al. correctly argue that warranted clinical exclusion of patient narratives need not constitute epistemic injustice, this paper introduces epistemic disadvantage, a coextensive but distinct category of harm. Drawing on its three conditions, I show how epistemic harm persists even when exclusions are non-prejudicial and justified, contributing to clinical ethical obligations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Epistemic disadvantage and looping breaks: a reply to Gauld et al.

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月6日

查看全文
  • Rena Alcalay

摘要

While Gauld et al. correctly argue that warranted clinical exclusion of patient narratives need not constitute epistemic injustice, this paper introduces epistemic disadvantage, a coextensive but distinct category of harm. Drawing on its three conditions, I show how epistemic harm persists even when exclusions are non-prejudicial and justified, contributing to clinical ethical obligations.