ABSTRACT
In this chapter, Jukola and Gadebusch Bondio analyze the so-called bouffant scandal, a debate which erupted in 2014 after the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) issued new guidelines for surgical attire in the perioperative setting. The AORN recommendation to cover all hair in operating room sparked a reaction from the community of surgeons, as it would effectively ban the use of the traditional surgical skull cap. A central question in the debate that followed was what type of evidence is needed for issuing new policies and practices in the clinical hygienic setting. By drawing on philosophy of science, Jukola and Gadebusch Bondio illustrate how different epistemic and non-epistemic (e.g., ethical) values and background assumptions can lead to disagreements concerning evidence and guidelines. In particular, they show that the participants in the discussion had divergent ideals concerning adequate evidence and relied on different understandings of the goal of the preventative guidelines. By comparing the US discussion with the reception of the perioperative hygiene guidelines in Germany, they suggest that different professional or interprofessional constellations of experts and decision makers may influence how claims about evidence and critique are formulated in debates. Their analysis of the bouffant scandal demonstrates how philosophical tools can be used for identifying argumentative patterns in disputes over evidence.
