BACKGROUND: When approaching medicine, phenomenology has at least two meanings that need to be distinguished in order to become relevant in its application to medical practice. Up to now, these two meanings have been overlapped by most of the scholarly literature. Therefore, the purpose of the article is to differentiate between them, thus endorsing their potential use in medical practice.
METHODS: The first meaning was instituted by Edmund Husserl and views phenomenology as transcendental, ie, as a transcendental rigorous science based on the unravelling of transcendental subjectivity/intersubjectivity. The second takes it more as a narrative enterprise, ie, as a description of personal subjective experience, thus seeming closer to other approaches to disease which can be found both in philosophy and other fields. Nevertheless, both provide advantages and disadvantages when it comes to approaching illness.
RESULTS: Neither of the two meanings can supersede the other and, consequently, neither of the two analogue forms of phenomenology can impose itself as the phenomenology of medicine.
CONCLUSION: It is important to clarify the consequences of applying each of the two understandings of phenomenology to medicine in the context of its current development. Our present inquiry concerns not merely the disentanglement of the status of what today's scholarly literature calls phenomenology of medicine in relation to meanings of phenomenology, but also the limits of applying phenomenology to the field of medicine.
