Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Br J Gen Pract . 2026 Mar 1;76(764):119. doi: 10.3399/bjgp26X744345 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search General practice: medicine’s living philosophy John Goldie John Goldie Retired GP and medical educator. Find articles by John Goldie * Author information Article notes Copyright and License information ✉ *For correspondence: John Goldie; [email protected] Roles John Goldie : Retired GP and medical educator. Collection date 2026 Mar 1. © British Journal of General Practice 2026 PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13060668 PMID: 41748443 In my final years in practice, I became the GP lead for our diabetic clinic. Care had become more structured since starting in practice, no longer squeezed into a patient’s 5-minute appointment slot. At first, I took satisfaction in completing Quality and Outcomes Framework screens and tracking HbA1c, cholesterol, and blood pressure — exactly what I had been trained for at medical school and in hospital posts. But that satisfaction soon gave way to moral distress. Many patients lived with multiple conditions, psychological struggles, and the daily challenges of lifestyle, family, and ageing. Too often, I lacked the time or resources to offer truly holistic care, falling back on extra prescribing as a stopgap. This tension reflects two competing views of medicine. The biomedical model treats disease as a mechanical fault — health is the absence of illness. In contrast, another perspective sees illness as a personal experience, shaped by life and culture. Health is not a box to tick, but a journey. To understand why the biomedical model sometimes feels inadequate in primary care, I turned to process philosophy. Western medicine has long been shaped by substance philosophy, from Aristotle and Descartes. Substance philosophy is the view that reality consists of fundamental, independent entities that possess properties (like colour or shape) but remain the same distinct ‘thing’ even when these properties change. It treats diseases as discrete entities located within bodies, amenable to diagnosis and intervention. In hospitals, this underpins the biomedical model: health problems are faults in the body, like broken parts in a machine. The goal is to find the problem, fix it, and move on. This approach has delivered enormous advances in diagnosis, treatment, and public health. Yet it reduces people to illnesses, separates mind from body, and neglects lived experience. Process philosophy, developed by Alfred North Whitehead and Henri Bergson, offers another lens. Reality is not static things but ongoing events, relationships, and processes. What looks like a ‘thing’ is just a snapshot of constant change. Whitehead called these moments ‘actual occasions’. In medicine, each consultation can be seen as such an occasion. Health and illness are emergent from dynamic interactions among biological, psychological, social, and environmental processes. Doctors and patients work together over time. Each appointment is a chance to understand the patient’s life, adapt care, and support their journey. Whether they flourish depends on the systems we build. Health care is built on substance philosophy: classification, protocols, and standardisation. For acute problems — like myocardial infarction or meningitis — this model is essential. It also structures disease management. But for multimorbidity, mental health, and long-term illness, it struggles to capture the whole patient. Here, general practice aligns more with process philosophy, where health is relational, narrative, and contextual, and care emphasises continuity, holism, and responsiveness. These philosophical insights are not abstract — they are borne out in research. Continuity of care, which unfolds as a story across time, reduces mortality rates. Holistic, person-centred care improves satisfaction, adherence, and outcomes. Social prescribing demonstrates the value of community embeddedness. Narrative medicine shows that viewing patients as stories rather than cases fosters empathy, trust, and therapeutic effectiveness. These are not add-ons; they are the very fabric of general practice — and process metaphysics gives them their philosophical backbone. Process philosophy also reframes ethics. Shared decision making becomes a cocreative process that honours the patient’s unfolding story. Autonomy and beneficence are not static principles but situated, emergent practices. Justice is broadened: recognising patients as embedded in social networks highlights the ethical imperative to address social determinants of health and promote equity. The GP’s role is not to manage conditions as fixed entities but to steward processes of becoming. This distinction matters even more as medicine faces the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), which thrives on substance logic but struggles with the relational dimensions of care. AI can identify the broken part, but it cannot do what GPs can: hold silence, cocreate meaning, and accompany patients through change. Far from replacing general practice, AI makes it more essential. Consider a patient with type 2 diabetes, obesity, and depression. Substance philosophy sees a collection of biological errors to be corrected, focusing on static measurements and standardised protocols. Care is episodic, authority lies in the guideline. Process philosophy sees the patient as a narrative in motion, exploring how life circumstances interact and aiming for resilience and adaptation. Regular follow-ups anchor the patient through a relationship that evolves as circumstances change. Integration — the unique skill of the GP — lies in bridging these worlds. It means maintaining biomedical rigour while holding space for ongoing conversations about the patient’s life and goals. Treatment is adjusted not just on today’s data, but on the patient’s life trajectory. What I felt as moral distress was not failure, but philosophy calling — reminding me that general practice is medicine’s living philosophy. It must be resourced accordingly. Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (30.5 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top