The interface of medicine, spirituality, and ethics : a case study of the McGill programs in whole person care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic and medical institutions are responding to rising critiques of mainstream, scientific medicine (biomedicine). One response is the establishment of centers and programs devoted to whole person care. I assess the response of the McGill Programs in Whole Person Care (WPC) to these critiques, particularly its incorporation of spirituality into medicine. Through textual hermeneutics, participant observation, and semi-structured interviews with faculty members, I argue that WPC is constructing its own worldview and normative framework. It does this by selectively drawing from the religious traditions of ancient Greece, Buddhism, and Christianity, interpreting these selections in terms of Jungian psychology, and sometimes secularizing them. My aim is to better understand the theory and praxis of whole person care in McGill University's Faculty of Medicine as a case study but also the ethical issues it raises. I conclude by providing points of reflection for institutions wishing to incorporate these health ideas and practices into conventional medicine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".