Résumé
Nous avons déjà eu l’occasion d’étudier comment Goldstein avait offert ses postulats fondamentaux à la neuroréhabilitation, lui permettant de s’imposer comme une nouvelle branche disciplinaire de la médecine [Gilart de Keranflec’h 2021]. Nous émettons aujourd’hui l’hypothèse que les propositions que Goldstein emprunte à ses confrères neurologues contemporains en les reformulant, celles qu’il rejette, celles qu’il prolonge seraient autant d’acculturations successives menant vers une terre plus vaste que la seule neurologie : le soin réhabilitateur. Bien avant d’éprouver l’exil comme tournant biographique majeur de son existence, Goldstein n’a-t-il pas déjà fait emprunter le chemin de l’exil à la neurologie en exigeant d’elle la considération de ses hybridations nécessaires avec les questions sociales et environnementales ? Alliant des dimensions du care, du cure et même du healing, le soin réhabilitateur conteste en effet à la seule discipline médicale sa prééminence sur des résultats de santé positifs pour les malades ayant des problèmes de santé dont la gravité les laisse en situation de handicap.
We have already had the occasion to study how Goldstein offered his fundamental postulates to neurorehabilitation, enabling it to establish itself as a new disciplinary branch of medicine [Gilart de Keranflec’h 2021]. Now we shall hypothesize that the proposals that Goldstein borrowed from his fellow contemporary neurologists by reformulating them, those he rejected and those he prolonged, were successive acculturations leading to a broader area than neurology alone, namely rehabilitative care. Long before he experienced exile —a major biographical turning point in his life—had Goldstein not already led neurology down the path of exile, by demanding that it take into consideration its necessary hybridization with social and environmental issues? Combining dimensions of care, cures and even healing, rehabilitative care challenges the medical discipline alone for its pre-eminence over positive health outcomes for patients with health problems whose severity leaves them in a situation of disability.
We have already had the occasion to study how Goldstein offered his fundamental postulates to neurorehabilitation, enabling it to establish itself as a new disciplinary branch of medicine [Gilart de Keranflec’h 2021]. Now we shall hypothesize that the proposals that Goldstein borrowed from his fellow contemporary neurologists by reformulating them, those he rejected and those he prolonged, were successive acculturations leading to a broader area than neurology alone, namely rehabilitative care. Long before he experienced exile —a major biographical turning point in his life—had Goldstein not already led neurology down the path of exile, by demanding that it take into consideration its necessary hybridization with social and environmental issues? Combining dimensions of care, cures and even healing, rehabilitative care challenges the medical discipline alone for its pre-eminence over positive health outcomes for patients with health problems whose severity leaves them in a situation of disability.