Michael Foley, focusing on Henri Bergson’s philosophy in “Life Lessons from Bergson”, writes –
there is a tendency to see what things have in common rather than what makes them unique, the source of a dispiriting sense of sameness.
As a doctor I need to know how to make a diagnosis. I also need a knowledge of the natural history of disease. However to actually help any individual patient I need something else as well – knowledge of this individual. So, I have to be able to see what things people have in common (certain symptoms and signs which indicate particular pathologies perhaps) and I need to be able to see this person sitting in front of me right now.
This person sitting in front of me right now is not the same as all the others. Every narrative I hear is unique and individual. No two patients have led, or are leading, identical lives, with identical bodies, minds, values and beliefs.
Reducing the individual to what they have in common with others is, in my opinion, “the source of a dispiriting sense of sameness”. That’s why I have such an aversion to Medicine by flow-chart, and the distorted practice of so called evidence based medicine which seeks to replace subjective human experience with data.
In short, we do not see the actual things themselves but in most cases confine ourselves to reading the attached labels.
Our left cerebral hemisphere is great for analysing things, sorting them into categories and applying labels, but it’s not enough. We have to attempt to “see the actual things themselves” and not be blinded by the labels. For doctors, that includes seeing the actual patients themselves, and not confining their understanding to the “attached labels” – diagnoses, categories or types.
I think the creation and appreciation of narrative is an important part of a doctor’s job and it requires more than a knowledge of the “medical sciences”.
Here’s Michael Foley again –
A crucial function of the arts is to prevent, or break down, dismissive labelling and reveal the singular instead of the similar, the peculiar instead of the familiar, and the inscrutable instead of the understood.
This reminds me so much of Deleuze’s three modes of thinking – science, which is thinking about function; philosophy, which is thinking about concepts; and, art, which is thinking about percepts and affects. Deleuze was a great advocate of thinking about difference too.
What an elegant phrase too – revealing “the singular instead of the similar, the peculiar instead of the familiar, and the inscrutable instead of the understood”.
What a great way to enhance respect for the individual – seeing them as unique and knowing you will never achieve a complete understanding them….which reminds me of Saint-Éxupery’s teaching that “What is essential is invisible to the eye”
Heroes Not Zombies 
Leave a comment