Part I: A Story of Harm
Sheilah Miller, a representative name for a tragically real phenomenon, was a 39-year-old Black woman admitted to the hospital to give birth to her child. It should have been a day of joy. Instead, it became a crucible of a quiet, insidious form of injustice that millions experience but few can name. There were complications with the birth. Hours bled into one another as Ms. Miller lost a great deal of blood, her body moving toward a catastrophic stroke.
She knew something was terribly wrong. As a patient, she was the primary and most intimate knower of her own suffering. She had crucial knowledge to share: about the location and intensity of her pain, her growing discomfort, her sense of impending doom. She shared this knowledge, repeatedly, with her physician, Dr. Smith. And for more than ten agonizing hours, Dr. Smith—a white man, and a representative figure of a system steeped in prejudice—refused to credit her testimony. He repeatedly ignored her complaints, dismissing the knowledge she offered about her own body.
The baby lived. Ms. Miller was paralyzed from the neck down.
In the aftermath of such a tragedy, our legal and social frameworks are equipped to recognize certain categories of injury. The financial harm is obvious: a mountain of medical expenses, a lifetime of lost wages. The physical harm is stark and undeniable: paralysis. The emotional harm is immense, manifesting as anxiety, depression, and the deep trauma of a body betrayed.
Paralysis is a horrifying outcome, but Sheilah Miller is, in a grim sense, one of the lucky ones. Not every woman survives such an ordeal. According to the CDC, Black women in the United States are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women—a chilling statistic that transforms stories like Ms. Miller’s from isolated tragedies into data points in a national crisis.
Beneath all of these familiar categories of injury lies a different, more foundational kind of damage, the one that served as the root cause of all the others: an epistemic harm. The term “epistemic” comes from the Greek word for knowledge. To be harmed epistemically is to be wronged in one’s fundamental capacity as a knower. It is a profound violation of human dignity, an act that treats a person not as a “someone” but as a “something”—an object whose testimony is irrelevant, whose reason is discounted, whose humanity is denied. As Ms. Miller pleaded for ten hours, she was not just being ignored; she was being epistemically objectified, reduced in the eyes of her doctor to an irrational animal or a piece of furniture, unworthy of credibility. This initial, invisible wound—the refusal to believe her testimony—is what allowed all the other, visible wounds to fester and erupt. It is the original sin from which all other damages flowed.
Part II: Naming the Injustice
What happened to Sheilah Miller was not just a tragic medical error or a simple failure of communication. It was a specific and profound act of injustice, but of a kind our society is only just beginning to develop the language to describe. To understand the weapon that was used against her, we must turn to the work of the philosopher Miranda Fricker, who gave this ancient form of harm a modern name: epistemic injustice.
The specific violation Ms. Miller suffered is what Fricker calls testimonial injustice. The concept is as simple as it is devastating. It occurs when a hearer, because of a prejudice they hold, assigns a “deflated level of credibility” to a speaker’s words [perhaps something some readers are doing at this very moment]. This act has three core components. First, there is a negative identity prejudice at play; the hearer, Dr. Smith, harbors a conscious or unconscious bias against an aspect of the speaker’s identity—in this case, Ms. Miller being a Black woman. Second, this prejudice creates an unjustified credibility deficit. Dr. Smith does not believe Ms. Miller’s testimony about her own pain, not because it is illogical or contradictory, but because his prejudice filters her words and renders them untrustworthy. Finally, this results in epistemic harm: Ms. Miller is wronged in her fundamental capacity as a knower, an act which degrades her, objectifies her, and denies her an essential part of her humanity.
Testimonial injustice is not the only form this wrong can take. Fricker also identifies a related, more structural concept: hermeneutical injustice. This occurs “when a gap in our collective interpretive resources puts someone at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to making sense of their social experiences.” Think of concepts like “sexual harassment” or “post-partum depression.” Before these terms were named and entered our shared vocabulary, countless individuals suffered in silence, lacking the very words to understand and communicate their own reality. They were harmed not just by the experience, but by the collective inability of society to even recognize that experience as real.
With these terms defined—testimonial injustice as the discrediting of a person, and hermeneutical injustice as the discrediting of an entire experience—we now have the vocabulary to properly diagnose the pathology at work. We have named the injustice. But to truly understand its devastating impact in our modern world, we must now examine how this weapon of disbelief is wielded, who is most vulnerable to its blows, and why the harm it inflicts is never, ever distributed equally.
Part III: The Power Asymmetry
To name the injustice is to understand its mechanics, but to truly grasp its devastating impact, we must recognize that its weight is never distributed equally. The power to inflict harm is not symmetrical. Consider the recent, spectacular downfall of the CEO of the tech company Astronomer, captured on a stadium Jumbotron in an embrace with his HR manager. In that moment of unwelcome public testimony, he was certainly wronged and undeniably harmed, suffering a swift and total reputational collapse that cost him his career. But the harm he suffered, while severe, was to his public standing and his professional life.
Now, compare that to the harm inflicted upon Sheilah Miller. When her testimony about her own body was dismissed, the consequence was not public shame, but a debilitating stroke. The CEO was harmed in his capacity as a powerful public figure; Ms. Miller was harmed in her capacity as a human being. This is the crucial asymmetry: the powerful are vulnerable to harms of status and reputation, but the powerless are vulnerable to harms of the body and the soul. And it is this latter, more grievous form of harm that is the focus of epistemic injustice.
Nowhere is this asymmetry of harm more violently clear than in the medical treatment of women, and most especially, women of color. For millions of women, the experience of being disbelieved by a doctor is not a rare exception; it is a predictable and exhausting feature of their healthcare journey. Researchers have given this phenomenon names like “Medical Gaslighting” and “Yentl Syndrome,” but the data tells a simpler, more brutal story. Women’s pain is systematically taken less seriously than men’s. Their symptoms, particularly for cardiac events and autoimmune disorders, are more likely to be dismissed as anxiety or stress. This credibility deficit has lethal consequences. It is a primary driver behind the chilling statistic that Black women in America are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than their white counterparts.
These are not just statistics; they are individual stories of terror and near-misses. Consider the story of Catherine, a woman whose trouble breathing was dismissed by her doctor first as a minor ailment that would “run its course,” and then as a simple case of pneumonia. For weeks, she followed his instructions, her own testimony about her worsening condition discounted. After a terrifying midnight rush to an emergency room, unable to breathe, X-rays revealed the truth: four massive pulmonary embolisms, any one of which could have killed her. Catherine’s testimony about her own body was repeatedly given a credibility deficit by a figure of authority. She suffered a profound epistemic wrong that produced a nearly fatal epistemic harm.
The stories of Sheilah Miller and Catherine are not outliers. They are exemplars of a system where negative identity prejudice—against women, against Black women, against the chronically ill—directly translates into physical, life-altering damage. Understanding this distinction between a harmless “wrong” and a devastating “harm” is the key to unlocking the political strategy of our current moment. It is precisely this weapon—the power to inflict catastrophic epistemic harm upon the vulnerable while shrugging off any epistemic wrongs against oneself—that has become the political tool of choice in our modern Capitol.
Part IV: Governmental Malpractice
In the world of medicine, one of the oldest and most sacred ethical principles is that of nonmaleficence: First, do no harm. This duty extends beyond avoiding intentional malice; it demands a standard of “due care” and a professional responsibility to fight against “inadvertent negligence.” A physician who operates from unexamined prejudice, who fails to listen to their patient and thus causes injury, is not just making a mistake; they are committing malpractice.
What if we were to apply this same standard of care to a government? Does a government not also have a fundamental duty of nonmaleficence toward its citizens? Viewed through this lens, the actions of the Felonious Punk administration cease to be mere political strategy and reveal themselves as a form of systemic governmental malpractice, built on the deliberate and repeated use of testimonial and hermeneutical injustice as primary tools of governance.
The administration’s sustained war on science is a textbook case of testimonial injustice. It systematically applies a negative identity prejudice not against race or gender, but against the very identity of being an expert or scientist whose data contradicts the administration’s political desires. This creates a massive, unjustified credibility deficit for entire fields of study, from epidemiology to climate science. It is a strategy that finds common cause with, and provides political cover for, figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose political identity is predicated on this very form of epistemic warfare against the scientific establishment. The result of this specific epistemic wrong is not just an insult to dedicated public servants; it is tangible, non-epistemic harm inflicted upon the public they serve, in the form of a mismanaged pandemic and a dangerously neglected environment.
This practice extends beyond experts to the press and the public at large. By declaring journalists the “enemy of the people” and dismissing entire narratives of lived experience from marginalized communities, the administration attempts to create a hermeneutical injustice. It actively works to erase the shared concepts and vocabulary—like “systemic racism”—needed for a society to understand and discuss its own social problems. When testimony that relies on this vocabulary is then dismissed, a vicious cycle is created: the public is deprived of the words to describe their reality, and then punished for trying.
This philosophy reached its zenith with the “anti-woke AI order,” a transparent attempt to codify epistemic injustice into federal policy itself. It is a direct order to create official credibility deficits for certain academic and social viewpoints while granting credibility excess to those that align with the administration’s ideology. It is one thing to practice testimonial injustice; it is another to hard-code it into the operating system of the government.
When a doctor repeatedly ignores a patient’s testimony, the patient’s body is irrevocably harmed. When a government repeatedly and intentionally commits epistemic injustice against its own experts, its own journalists, and its own people, the entire body politic is endangered. This systemic malpractice, this weaponization of disbelief, forces a final, sobering question: What is the long-term prognosis for a nation whose own government refuses to listen to it?
Part V: The Search for a Remedy
After a grim diagnosis, a physician’s duty is to prescribe a course of treatment. The medical ethics paper that grounds our analogy of “malpractice” concludes with exactly such a prescription. It calls for practical, forward-looking solutions: for medical ethicists to re-examine professional codes of conduct, and for physicians to be “better equipped, trained, and sensitized” to the silent, destructive harm of epistemic injustice. In a professional sphere like medicine, where there is at least a shared, if sometimes violated, Hippocratic oath to do no harm, this offers a hopeful, practical path forward.
But what is the prescription when the malady is not in a single physician, but in the body politic itself? What is the remedy when the practitioners of the injustice have taken no such oath, and in fact, see the infliction of harm as a viable political tool? To suggest sensitivity training for political operatives who weaponize disbelief is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the disease. In the political arena, a system oriented not toward care but toward power, such a proposal would be the definition of folly.
The remedy for governmental malpractice, then, is not a professional seminar; it is democratic accountability. It is a solution that lies not with the perpetrators, but with the public they are meant to serve. The responsibility falls upon citizens, a free press, and the nation’s civic institutions to learn the language of this pathology. It is our collective task to recognize testimonial injustice not as “tough politics,” but as a disqualifying betrayal of public trust. The remedy is to make this behavior so politically toxic, so costly at the ballot box, that it is no longer a viable strategy for winning and holding power. The public itself must become the virtuous, critical hearer that our philosophy demands—the ultimate check on a government that refuses to listen.
This, then, is the difficult path forward. It is not a passive hope that the powerful will reform themselves, but an active civic duty to hold them to a higher standard of epistemic decency. With this search for a remedy in mind, we can now return to the prognosis for Sheilah Miller, and for the nation she represents, with a clearer sense of what is truly at stake.
Part VI: A Prognosis
We began this examination with the story of Sheilah Miller, paralyzed in a hospital bed, a victim not only of a stroke but of a profound and violent act of disbelief. Her physical prognosis is a life sentence, a permanent testament to the tangible, catastrophic harm that flows from the seemingly intangible act of being discredited. But what of her other prognosis? What of her “electoral” prognosis—her standing as a citizen, a member of the body politic whose testimony is meant to be a foundational element of a functioning democracy?
Her prognosis, in this sense, is the nation’s. The health of our democracy can be measured by a single, stark metric: is a person like Sheilah Miller, a woman, a Black woman, a patient, seen as a credible witness to her own life? When a government engages in systemic “governmental malpractice,” making the creation of credibility deficits a routine tool of the state, the prognosis is grim. If Sheilah Miller remains silenced, her harm legally unrecognized and her testimony dismissed as an inconvenient anecdote, then the “Great American Experiment” is on life support, its core principle of a government accountable to its people rendered null and void.
A society cannot function when it is no longer capable of agreeing on a shared reality. The weaponization of disbelief from the highest office in the land is a deliberate effort to shatter that reality for political gain. It is a slow-acting poison introduced into the bloodstream of the nation, designed to erode the trust between citizens and institutions, between neighbors, and even between individuals and their own perceptions. It seeks to create a world where the only “truth” is that which is sanctioned by power, and where all other testimony is rendered suspect.
This is the ultimate, devastating harm of epistemic injustice when it is practiced at the level of the state. It doesn’t just injure individuals; it sickens the entire social fabric. It breeds a pervasive cynicism that can outlast any single administration, leaving behind a populace too exhausted and too mistrustful to engage in the difficult work of self-governance. The path to recovery, then, both for Sheilah Miller and for the nation she represents, begins not with a grand political gesture, but with the simplest and most revolutionary of acts: the choice to listen, and the courage to believe. The fight to restore credibility to those who have been unjustly silenced is the fight for the soul of the nation.
Discover more from Chronicle-Ledger-Tribune-Globe-Times-FreePress-News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
