Agential Epistemic Injustice in Clinical Interactions Is Bad for Medicine

Authors

  • Lisa Bortolotti Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Department of Neurosciences and Rehabilitation, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0507-4650

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2025.222

Keywords:

Agential epistemic injustice, Clinical interaction, Youth mental health, Lack of competence, Epistemic agency, Credulity, Agential stance

Abstract

In interactions characterized by agential epistemic injustice, the interpreter avoids engaging with the speaker’s perspective and challenges or distorts the speaker’s contribution before taking time to explore it. Where the success of the interaction depends on a genuine knowledge exchange between interpreters and speakers, epistemic injustice compromises the success of the interaction. Building on recent qualitative work on communication in youth mental health, I argue that clinical interactions are less likely to achieve their aims when practitioners fail to engage with the perspective of the person seeking support, and challenge or distort the person’s contribution before taking time to explore it.

References

Arboleya-Faedo, Tatiana, Ana González-Menéndez, David González-Pando, Mercedes Paino, and Fernando Alonso-Pérez. 2023. “Experiences of Self-Stigma in People with Chronic Psychosis: A Qualitative Study.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 9, article 5688. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20095688.

Bacha, Karin, Terry Hanley, and Laura Anne Winter. 2020. “‘Like a Human Being, I Was an Equal, I Wasn’t Just a Patient’: Service Users’ Perspectives on Their Experiences of Relationships with Staff in Mental Health Services.” Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 93, no. 2: 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12218.

Bergen, Clara, Lisa Bortolotti, Katherine Tallent, Matthew Broome, Michael Larkin, Rachel Temple, Catherine Fadashe, Carmen Lee, Michele C. Lim, and Rose McCabe. 2022. “Communication in Youth Mental Health Clinical Encounters: Introducing the Agential Stance.” Theory & Psychology 32, no. 5: 667–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221095079.

Bergen, Clara, Lisa Bortolotti, Rachel Kimberley Temple, Catherine Fadashe, Carmen Lee, Michele Lim, and Rose McCabe. 2023. “Implying Implausibility and Undermining Versus Accepting People’s Experiences of Suicidal Ideation and Self-Harm in Emergency Department Psychosocial Assessments.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 14 (August), article 1197512. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1197512.

Birkhäuer, Johanna, Jens Gaab, Joe Kossowsky, Sebastian Hasler, Peter Krummenacher, Christoph Werner, and Heike Gerger. 2017. “Trust in the Health Care Professional and Health Outcome: A Meta-analysis.” PLoS ONE 12, no. 2, article e0170988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170988.

Blease, Charlotte, Havi Carel, and Keith Geraghty. 2017. “Epistemic Injustice in Healthcare Encounters: Evidence from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Journal of Medical Ethics 43, no. 8: 549–557. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103691.

Bortolotti, Lisa. 2018. “Optimism, Agency, and Success.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21: 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9894-6.

Bortolotti, Lisa, Fiona Malpass, Kathleen Murphy-Hollies, Thalia Somerville-Large, Gurpriya Kapoor, and Owen Braid. 2025. “Challenging Stereotypes About Young People Who Hear Voices.” In Epistemic Justice in Mental Healthcare: Recognising Agency and Promoting Virtues Across the Life Span, edited by Lisa Bortolotti, 23–39. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68881-2_2.

Bortolotti, Lisa, and Kathleen Murphy-Hollies. 2023. “Why We Should Be Curious About Each Other.” Philosophies 8, no. 4, article 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies8040071.

Bury, Michael. 1982. “Chronic Illness as Biographical Disruption.” Sociology of Health & Illness 4, no. 2: 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11339939.

Byrne, Eleanor Alexandra. 2020. “Striking the Balance with Epistemic Injustice in Healthcare: The Case of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23, no. 3: 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-020-09945-4.

Byrne, Sadhbh J., India Bellairs-Walsh, Simon M. Rice, Sarah Bendall, Michelle Lamblin, Emily Boubis, Brianna McGregor, Meghan O’Keefe, and Jo Robinson. 2021. “A Qualitative Account of Young People’s Experiences Seeking Care from Emergency Departments for Self-Harm.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 6, article 2892. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062892.

Carel, Havi, and Ian James Kidd. 2014. “Epistemic Injustice in Healthcare: A Philosophical Analysis.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17, no. 4: 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9560-2.

Chattat, Rabih, Sara Trolese, and Ilaria Chirico. 2025. “Promoting Good Living and Social Health in Dementia.” In Epistemic Justice in Mental Healthcare: Recognising Agency and Promoting Virtues Across the Life Span, edited by Lisa Bortolotti, 125–140. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68881-2_7.

Crichton Paul, Havi Carel, and Ian James Kidd. 2017. “Epistemic Injustice in Psychiatry.” BJPsych Bulletin 41, no. 2: 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.050682.

Dorfman, Natalie, and Joel Michael Reynolds. 2023. “The New Hysteria: Borderline Personality Disorder and Epistemic Injustice.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 16, no. 2: 162–181. https://doi.org/10.3138/ijfab-2023-0008.

Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grim, Katarina, Malin Tistad, Ulla-Karin Schön, and David Rosenberg. 2019. “The Legitimacy of User Knowledge in Decision-Making Processes in Mental Health Care: An Analysis of Epistemic Injustice.” Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health 6, no. 2: 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40737-019-00145-9.

Hookway, Christopher. 2010. “Some Varieties of Epistemic Injustice: Reflections on Fricker.” Episteme 7, no. 2: 151–163. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2010.0005.

Houlders, Joseph W., Lisa Bortolotti, and Matthew R. Broome. 2021. “Threats to Epistemic Agency in Young People with Unusual Experiences and Beliefs.” Synthese 199, no. 3–4: 7689–7704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03133-4.

Jongsma, Karen, and Mark Schweda. 2018. “Return to Childhood? Against the Infantilization of People with Dementia.” Bioethics 32, no. 7: 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12458.

Kidd, Ian James. 2019. “Pathophobia, Vices, and Illness.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 27, no. 2: 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2019.1612625.

Kidd, Ian James, Lucienne Spencer, and Eleanor Harris. 2023. “Epistemic Injustice Should Matter to Psychiatrists.” Philosophy of Medicine 4, no. 1: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2023.159.

Kious, Brent M., Benjamin R. Lewis, and Scott Y.H. Kim. 2023. “Epistemic Injustice and the Psychiatrist.” Psychological Medicine 53, no. 1: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291722003804.

Klein, Pauline, A. Kate Fairweather, and Sharon Lawn. 2022. “Structural Stigma and Its Impact on Healthcare for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Scoping Review.” International Journal of Mental Health Systems 16, no. 1, article 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-022-00558-3.

Larkin, Michael, Lisa Bortolotti, and Michele Lim. 2024. “Expertise as Perspectives in Dialogue.” In Expertise: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Duncan Pritchard, Mirko Farina, and Andrea Lavazza, 65–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198877301.003.0005.

Lysaker, Paul H., and Bethany L. Leonhardt. 2012. “Agency: Its Nature and Role in Recovery from Severe Mental Illness.” World Psychiatry 11, no. 3: 165–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2012.tb00121.x.

Martin, Leslie R., and M. Robin DiMatteo. 2013. “Clinical Interactions.” In Nonverbal Communication, edited by Judith A. Hall and Mark L. Knapp, 833–858. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238150.833.

McGlynn, Aidan. 2020. “Objects or Others? Epistemic Agency and the Primary Harm of Testimonial Injustice.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 23: 831–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10078-z.

Medina, José. 2020. “Agential Epistemic Injustice and Collective Epistemic Resistance in the Criminal Justice System.” Social Epistemology 35, no. 2: 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2020.1839594.

———. 2022. “Group Agential Epistemic Injustice: Epistemic Disempowerment and Critical Defanging of Group Epistemic Agency.” Philosophical Issues 32, no. 1: 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12221.

Newbigging, Karen, and Julie Ridley. 2018. “Epistemic Struggles: The Role of Advocacy in Promoting Epistemic Justice and Rights in Mental Health.” Social Science & Medicine 219 (December): 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.10.003.

Okoroji, Celestin, Tanya Mackay, Dan Robotham, Davino Beckford, and Vanessa Pinfold. 2023. “Epistemic Injustice and Mental Health Research: A Pragmatic Approach to Working with Lived Experience Expertise.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 14, article 1114725. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1114725.

Palafox-Harris, Eleanor. 2025. “Resisting Perceptions of Patient Untrustworthiness.” In Epistemic Justice in Mental Healthcare: Recognising Agency and Promoting Virtues Across the Life Span, edited by Lisa Bortolotti, 85–104. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68881-2_5.

Pies, Ronald. 2013. “From Context to Phenomenology in Grief Versus Major Depression.” Psychiatric Annals 43, no. 6: 286–290. https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20130605-09.

Pohlhaus, Gaile, Jr. 2020. “Epistemic Agency Under Oppression.” Philosophical Papers 49, no. 2: 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2020.1780149.

Radoilska, Lubomira, and David Foreman. 2023. “Epistemic Justice Is Both a Legitimate and an Integral Goal of Psychiatry: A Reply to Kious, Lewis and Kim (2023).” Psychological Medicine 53, no. 14: 6939–6940. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172300082X.

Ritunnano, Rosa. 2022. “Overcoming Hermeneutical Injustice in Mental Health: A Role for Critical Phenomenology.” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 53, no. 3: 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071773.2022.2031234.

Rogers, W.A. 2002. “Is There a Moral Duty for Doctors to Trust Patients?” Journal of Medical Ethics 28, no. 2: 77–80. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.28.2.77.

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Language 50, no. 4: 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243.

Stubbe Dorothy E. 2016. “Defeating Depression: The Healing Power of the Therapeutic Relationship.” Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) 14, no. 2: 219–221. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20160004.

Spencer, Lucienne. 2023. “Epistemic Injustice in Late-Stage Dementia: A Case for Non-verbal Testimonial Injustice.” Social Epistemology 37, no. 1: 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2103474.

Wanderer, Jeremy. 2012. “Addressing Testimonial Injustice: Being Ignored and Being Rejected.” Philosophical Quarterly 62, no. 246: 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2011.712.x.

Woods, Angela, Akiko Hart, and Helen Spandler. 2022. “The Recovery Narrative: Politics and Possibilities of a Genre.” Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 46, no. 2: 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-019-09623-y.

Downloads

Published

2025-04-10

How to Cite

Bortolotti, L. (2025). Agential Epistemic Injustice in Clinical Interactions Is Bad for Medicine. Philosophy of Medicine, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2025.222

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025)

Section

Original Research Articles (health, disease and illness)

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Lisa Bortolotti

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
  9. The Author agrees to digitally sign the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work.

Funding data

  • Wellcome
    Grant numbers GRANT: [226603/Z/22/Z], EPIC: EPISTEMIC INJUSTICE IN HEALTH CARE