Talk:Narrative medicine

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I wonder how can the neutrality of this article to be disputed, as I see no dispute about it, and it's so small it hardly has any content to argue about. Whoever stuck the non-neutrality label on it might have to reconsiderer hir criteria on objectivity. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put the label on it, but some potential issues include:

1. In the History section the article states, "According to this critique, many medical schools and residency programs train physicians to treat medical problems merely as problems to be solved, without taking into account the specific psychological and personal history of the patient. As of late 1990s physians [sic.] like Rachael Niomi Remen, and Rita Charon have emphasized that medical practice should be structured around the narrative." However, medical schools use case studies as a teaching instrument, and patient histories are a part of such studies. To claim that medical schools do not use such tools is a fabrication. As for specific psychological concerns, if they are maladaptive, they are treated by medical professionals. There is a whole field devoted to this subject called "psychiatry".
2. The History section also contains this, unsubstantiated, claim: "In order to reach this level of medical care, physicians should practice narrative medicine." This is neither a historical claim, nor one that is supported by a citation. It is a personal opinion, and not one with a NPOV.
3. The Obstacles section includes the statement, "Through courses that emphasize anatomy and chemistry, often, the body becomes treated as an object." No justification is given for why this is an obstacle to narrative medicine, and no citation is given to support the opinion that medicine as it is taught treats the body, and presumably people as objects. One also must presume, unless the writer is stating the obvious, that the word "object" is being used here as a derogatory painting of medical schools today, and not in the sense that the body is something tangible to the senses. This violates NPOV. SirMoogie (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of articles on WP about fringe subjects on the cutting edge of human awareness that dont do justice to the subjects. if we cant write about a subject like this using NPOV, then its not ready to be an article. this subject, since a book was written about it, can have an article, i believe. i may try to rewrite it, give it better structure.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the sake of clarity: Narrative medicine is most definitely not a fringe topic. (Though the way the page was framed may have given that impression.) 86.181.64.67 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this article was previously marked as POV - its issues clearly remain. I am willing to partially rewrite this article or a section of it or provide more specific criticism but will likely do so later in the week. However, I believe that many of its neutrality issues are rather clear and egregious, and so likely I do not need to detail them explicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikevcowsky (talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]