Disagreeing respectfully: embracing complexity facilitates civil discourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.82086Abstract
Polarization and incivility are on the rise, negatively affecting collegiality, workplace relationships, morale, and performance at work. The authors argue for the need for civil discourse in medicine and for embracing complexity as an essential component of that civil discourse, facilitating nuanced thinking, respectful dialogue, and greater understanding of other perspectives. This principle of embracing complexity is congruent with the attitude of physicians, who are trained to tolerate uncertainty and to hold and appreciate multiple perspectives in making diagnoses and choosing and proposing treatment plans. This understanding of civil discourse does not amount to moral relativism, whataboutism, or an embracing of both sides of an argument universally, nor does it serve as a cudgel to silence or to perpetuate hegemonic power. Instead, the principles of civil discourse clarify multiple aspects of the boundaries of professional conduct, outlining how physicians can engage in advocacy for patients and communities while maintaining collegial relationships and the perception that they will be safe providers for all patients. The rights of citizens in democracies, including to engage in peaceful protest and to say anything within the bounds of their country’s laws governing free speech, do not extend unabbreviated into the lives of professionals, who are limited by the privileges afforded to them and by the responsibilities they have to their patients and colleagues. By embracing complexity and nuance over simplism and slogans, physician colleagues who disagree with one another can communicate respectfully, advocate professionally, and be safe and effective care providers to all patients.
Downloads
References
1. Ross B. Polarization, populism, and the crisis of American democracy. Annual Rev Law Soc Sci. 2024;20:293-308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-035113
2. Levin SA, Milner, Helen V, Perrings C. The dynamics of political polarization. PNAS. 2021;118(50). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116950118
3. Cantor M. ‘Polarization’ is Merriam-Webster’s word of the year: ‘something everyone agrees on.’ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/09/merriam-webster-word-of-the-year-polarization
4. Skytte R. Dimensions of elite partisan polarization: Disentangling the effects of incivility and issue polarization. Brit J Poli Sci 2020;51(4):1457–1475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000760
5. Chen H-T, Song Y, Guo J. When disagreement becomes uncivil on social media: the role of passive receiving and active expression of incivility in influencing political polarization. Com Res. 2024:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241285069
6. Cortina L, Kabat-Farr D, Magley V, Nelson K. Researching rudeness: the past, present, and future of the science of incivility. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):299–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000089
7. Abate LE, Greenberg L. Incivility in medical education: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. Jan 12 2023;23(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03988-2
8. McCullough LB, Coverdale J, Chervenak FA. Professional virtue of civility and the responsibilities of medical educators and academic leaders. J Med Ethics. Oct 2023;49(10):674-678. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108735
9. Caza BB, Cortina LM. From insult to injury: explaining the impact of incivility. Basic Applied Soc Psychol. 2007;29(4):335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665108
10. LaDonna KA, Kahlke R, Scott I, Van der Goes T, Hubinette M. Grappling with key questions about assessment of the Health Advocate Role. Can Med Educ J. 2023;14(1):80-89. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.73878
11. Hubinette MM, Ajjawi R, Dharamsi S. Family physician preceptors' conceptualizations of health advocacy: implications for medical education. Acad Med. Nov 2014;89(11):1502-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000479
12. Frank JR, Danoff D. The CanMEDS initiative: implementing an outcomes-based framework of physician competencies. Med Teach. Sep 2007;29(7):642-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701746983
13. Gonzalo JD, Wolpaw DR, Cooney R, et al. Evolving the systems-based practice competency in graduate medical education to meet patient needs in the 21st-century health care system. Acad Med. May 1 2022;97(5):655-661. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004598
14. Watling C, Sandomierski D, Poinar S, Shaw J, LaDonna K. The courage to advocate: how two professions approach public advocacy work. Med Educ. Nov 2024;58(11):1361-1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15430
15. Hubinette MM, Wyatt TR, Ellaway RH. Refracting the concept of physician advocacy using the prism of professional resistance. MedEdPublish. 2024;14(210). https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.20543.1
16. Hubinette MM, LaDonna KA, Scott I, van der Goes T, Kahlke R. When I say… health advocacy. Med Educ. 2022;56(4):362-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14728
17. Hubinette MM, Dobson S, Scott I, Sherbino J. Health Advocacy. Med Teach. 2017;39(2):128-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1245853
18. Dobson S, Voyer S, Regehr G. Perspective: agency and activism: rethinking health advocacy in the medical profession. Acad Med. Sep 2012;87(9):1161-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182621c25
19. Ellaway RH, Orkin AM. Standards and accountabilities for professional resistance. Can Med Educ J. Aug 2024;15(4):134-135. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79395
20. Leskes A. A plea for civil discourse: needed, the academy's leadership. Lib Educ. 2013;99(4)
21. Hamlyn DW. Aristotle on Dialectic. Philosoph. 1990;65(254):465-476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003181910006469X
22. Dawson H. Locke on language in (civil) society. History of Political Thought. 2005;26(3):397-425.
23. Kumagai AK, Najeeb U. Dialogues across difference: teaching for social justice and inclusion in health professions education. Med Educ. Jan 2025;59(1):11-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15556
24. Hrubec M. Preconditions of an intercultural dialogue on human rights. Veritas (Porto Alegre). 2010;55(1). https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2010.1.7328
25. Csillag R. Doctors were centrally complicit in the Holocaust. What are the lessons for Canadian medical schools today? The Canadian Jewish News. https://thecjn.ca/news/holocaust-medical-education/#
26. Goldhagen DJ. Hitler's willing executioners: ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. 1st ed. Knopf : Distributed by Random House; 1996:x, 622 p.
27. Feldman J. The simplicity principle in human concept learning. Current directions in psychological science. 2003;12(6):227-232. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0963-7214.2003.01267.x
28. Somer M, McCoy JL, Luke RE. Pernicious polarization, Autocratization and opposition strategies. Democratization. 2021;28(5):929–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1865316
29. Coleman PT. The way out: how to overcome toxic polarization. Columbia University Press,; 2021:1 online resource. https://doi.org/10.7312/cole19740
30. Gilbert M. Walking together. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 1990;15:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1990.tb00202.x
31. Kuper A. The intersubjective and the intrasubjective in the patient physician dyad: implications for medical humanities education. Med Humanit. Dec 2007;33(2):75-80. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2006.000252
32. Cleland J, Cilliers F, van Schalkwyk S. The learning environment in remediation: a review. Clin Teach. Feb 2018;15(1):13-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12739
33. Holmér S, Nedlund A-C, Thomas K, Krevers B. How health care professionals handle limited resources in primary care – an interview study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(6) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08996-y
34. Nunes R, Nunes SB, Rego G. Health Care as a universal right. J Pub Health. 2017;25(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-016-0762-3
35. Moosa T. The 'punch a Nazi' meme: what are the ethics of punching Nazis? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/jan/31/the-punch-a-nazi-meme-what-are-the-ethics-of-punching-nazis
36. Stack L. Attack on Alt-right leader has internet asking: is it o.k. to punch a Nazi? New York Times. January 21, 2017.
37. Hawn A. The civility cudgel: the myth of civility in communication. Howard J Comm. 2020;31(2):218-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2020.1731882
38. Beagan B. Neutralizing differences: producing neutral doctors for (almost) neutral patients. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:1253-1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00043-5
39. Al-Eraky MM. Twelve tips for teaching medical professionalism at all levels of medical education. Med Teach. 2015;37(11):1018–1025. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1020288
40. Hall KH. Reviewing intuitive decision-making and uncertainty: the implications for medical education. Med Educ. Mar 2002;36(3):216-24. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01140.x
41. Tonelli MR, Upshur REG. A philosophical approach to addressing uncertainty in medical education. Acad Med. Apr 2019;94(4):507-511. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002512
42. Stone D, Patton B, Heen S. Difficult conversations : how to discuss what matters most. Revised edition. ed. Penguin Books; 2023:xxiv, 372 pages.
43. Winters M-F, Reese MN. We can't talk about that at work! : how to talk about race, religion, politics, and other polarizing topics. Second Edition. ed. Berrett-Koehler Publishers,; 2024:1 online resource.
44. Bauchner H, Fontanarosa PB, Thompson AE. Professionalism, governance, and self-regulation of medicine. JAMA. May 12 2015;313(18):1831-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.4569
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ariel Lefkowitz , Jerry M Maniate, Ayelet Kuper
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
