Roger Kerry

Persistent pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Research into pain experiences often adopts a humanistic perspective, predominantly relying on interview data and rarely engaging with real-world contexts. The Posthuman Walking Project brought together a transdisciplinary network of individuals with lived experiences of pain alongside academics and clinicians from five countries to collectively explore how posthuman philosophies might challenge human-centered paradigms. Specifically, we used mobile phone video footage to investigate the more-than- human entanglements of walking in the landscape when experiencing pain. This paper reflects on our engagement with the uncertainty and multifaceted nature of exploratory methods and how the process of “becoming posthuman” did not follow a pre-determined path. We outline our rhizomatic methodological approach, emphasizing the contributions of walker-partners, project development meetings, and the value of allowing methods to remain responsive and emergent. Finally, we discuss the complexities of studying the assemblage of humans, walking, pain, and landscape, illuminating the transformative potential of posthuman frameworks in understanding lived experiences of pain.

Persistent pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Research into pain experiences often adopts a humanistic perspective, predominantly relying on interview data and rarely engaging with real-world contexts. The Posthuman Walking Project brought together a transdisciplinary network of individuals with lived experiences of pain alongside academics and clinicians from five countries to collectively explore how posthuman philosophies might challenge human-centered paradigms. Specifically, we used mobile phone video footage to investigate the more-than- human entanglements of walking in the landscape when experiencing pain. This paper reflects on our engagement with the uncertainty and multifaceted nature of exploratory methods and how the process of “becoming posthuman” did not follow a pre-determined path. We outline our rhizomatic methodological approach, emphasizing the contributions of walker-partners, project development meetings, and the value of allowing methods to remain responsive and emergent. Finally, we discuss the complexities of studying the assemblage of humans, walking, pain, and landscape, illuminating the transformative potential of posthuman frameworks in understanding lived experiences of pain.

Healthcare decisions evaluate treatment risks and benefits, using a shared decision-making process between patient and clinician. Healthcare workers (HCWs) offer treatments based on condition specific evidence and expert knowledge. The patient evaluates treatment choices from their individual perception of how helpful or harmful treatment might be. This is a “risk-taking” decision. Those in a disorder of consciousness (DOC) have unreliable or absent awareness. They cannot participate in the risk-taking decisional process outlined above. Instead, family members and HCWs evaluate the options and determine how much risk is acceptable. We propose this is a distinctly different decisional process called “risk-making,” and that for those in a DOC it is influenced by multiple poorly understood factors. The different ways that decisions are made on their behalf may be negatively impacting their healthcare and creating a distributive justice need. A “risk-making” theory of DOC healthcare decision-making was developed via narrative literature review. It aims to explicate the realities of DOC decision-making practices, and surface rarely discussed assumptions and social factors possibly impacting DOC healthcare for discussion and future exploration.

We claim that if a complete philosophy of evidence-based practice is intended, then attention to the nature of causation in health science is necessary. We identify how health science currently conceptualises causation by the way it prioritises some research methods over others. We then show how the current understanding of what causation is serves to constrain scientific progress. An alternative account of causation is offered. This is one of dispositionalism. We claim that by understanding causation from a dispositionalist stance, many of the processes within an evidence-based practice framework are better accounted for. Further, some of the problems associated with the health research, e.g. external validity of causal findings, dissolve.

Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) remain recalcitrant to the medical profession, proving less suitable for homogenic treatment with respect to their aetiology, taxonomy and diagnosis. While the majority of existing medical research methods are designed for large scale population data and sufficiently homogenous groups, MUS are characterised by their heterogenic and complex nature. As a result, MUS seem to resist medical scrutiny in a way that other conditions do not. This paper approaches the problem of MUS from a philosophical point of view. The aim is to first consider the epistemological problem of MUS in a wider ontological and phenomenological context, particularly in relation to causation. Second, the paper links current medical practice to certain ontological assumptions. Finally, the outlines of an alternative ontology of causation are offered which place characteristic features of MUS, such as genuine complexity, context-sensitivity, holism and medical uniqueness at the centre of any causal set-up, and not only for MUS. This alternative ontology provides a framework in which to better understand complex medical conditions in relation to both their nature and their associated research activity

Causation is important when considering how an organism maintains health, why disease arises in a healthy person, and how one may intervene to change the course of a disease. This paper explores the form of causative relationships in health, disease and intervention, with particular regard to the pathological and biopsychosocial models. Consistent with the philosophical view of dispositionalism, we believe that objects are the fundamental relata of causation. By accepting the broad scope of the biopsychosocial model, we argue that psychological and social constructs be considered objects. We think that this 'biopsychosocial dispositionalism' offers the flexibility required to describe causation throughout health, disease and intervention pathways. When constructing mechanistic chains to describe causative pathways, we argue that an object will causally connect with others through actions; transfers of energy from one object to another, initiated by the manifestation of one or more dispositional property. Finally, our analysis of causative interactions utilises the concept that a common form of interaction exists between disease and intervention pathways. This common form will always be an object, but the mode of interaction will vary with each disease. We describe how intervention may act through objects being shared between converging mechanistic chains, or through the removal and/or insertion of objects in such chains. We believe that this analysis provides novel insight to the forms of causative transactions that can occur. In addition, we hope that the findings of this analysis represent the first step towards developing a framework for appraising the composition of mechanistic theories.

Causation is important when considering: how an organism maintains health; why disease arises in a healthy person; and, how one may intervene to change the course of a disease. This paper explores the form of causative relationships in health, disease and intervention, with particular regard to the pathological and biopsychosocial models. Consistent with the philosophical view of dispositionalism, we believe that objects are the fundamental relata of causation. By accepting the broad scope of the biopsychosocial model, we argue that psychological and social constructs be considered objects. We think that this ‘biopsychosocial dispositionalism’ offers the flexibility required to describe causation throughout health, disease and intervention pathways. When constructing mechanistic chains to describe causative pathways, we argue that an object will causally connect with others through actions; transfers of energy from one object to another, initiated by the manifestation of one or more dispositional property. Finally, our analysis of causative interactions utilises the concept that a common form of interaction exists between disease and intervention pathways. This common form will always be an object, but the mode of interaction will vary with each disease. We describe how intervention may act through objects being shared between converging mechanistic chains, or through the removal and/or insertion of objects in such chains. We believe that this analysis provides novel insight to the forms of causative transactions that can occur. In addition, we hope that the findings of this analysis represent the first step towards developing a framework for appraising the composition of mechanistic theories.

Sir Austin Bradford Hill’s ‘aspects of causation’ represent some of the most influential thoughts on the subject of proximate causation in health and disease. Hill compiled a list of features that, when present and known, indicate an increasing likelihood that exposure to a factor causes—or contributes to the causation of—a disease. The items of Hill’s list were not labelled ‘criteria’, as this would have inferred every item being necessary for causation. Hence, criteria that are necessary for causation in health, disease and intervention processes, whether known, knowable, or not, remain undetermined and deserve exploration. To move beyond this position, this paper aims to explore factors that are necessary in the constitution of causative relationships between health, disease processes, and intervention. To this end, disease is viewed as a causative pathway through the often overlapping stages of aetiology, pathology and patho-physiology. Intervention is viewed as a second, independent causative pathway, capable of causing changes in health for benefit or harm. For the natural course of a disease pathway to change, we argue that intervention must not only occupy the same time and space, but must also share a common form; the point at which the two pathways converge and interact. This improved conceptualisation may be used to facilitate the interpretation of clinical observations and inform future research, particularly enabling predictions of the mechanistic relationship between health, disease and intervention.