David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (5):539 – 567 (2000)
A number of philosophers of medicine have attempted to provide analyses of health and disease in which the role that values play in those concepts is restricted. There are three ways in which values can be restricted in the concepts of health and disease. They can be: (i) eliminated, (ii) tamed or (iii) corralled. These three approaches correspond, respectively, to the work of Boorse, Lennox, and Wakefield. The concern of each of these authors is that if unrestricted values are allowed to infect our concepts of health and disease, then anything could be construed as healthy or diseased. They believe that, if at all possible, such a result should be avoided. Unfortunately, as I argue, this result is unavoidable and such attempts to limit values in these concepts are destined to fail. I argue for this position by showing how each of these three attempts to provide value-restricted analyses of health and disease fail as analyses of the concepts of health and disease and that they fail because of their attempts to restrict the role of values in their accounts. I also show how, despite their best efforts, each of these analyses are, themselves, value-driven and value-laden. This leads to the conclusion that values infect our concepts of health and disease at all levels.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jukka Varelius (2007). Execution by Lethal Injection, Euthanasia, Organ-Donation and the Proper Goals of Medicine. Bioethics 21 (3):140–149.
Sean A. Valles (2012). Evolutionary Medicine at Twenty: Rethinking Adaptationism and Disease. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 27 (2):241-261.
Vassiliki Leontis & George Agich (2010). Freitas on Disease in Nanomedicine: Implications for Ethics. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 4 (3):205-214.
Andrew Miles & Michael Loughlin (2009). Philosophy, Freedom and the Public Good: A Review and Analysis of 'Public Health Ethics' Holland, S. (2007). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15 (5):838-858.
Similar books and articles
Bjørn Hofmann (2002). On the Triad Disease, Illness and Sickness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (6):651 – 673.
Kenneth F. Schaffner (2000). Medical Informatics and the Concept of Disease. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21 (1):85-100.
Edmund L. Erde (2000). On Values, Professionalism and Nosology: An Essay with Late Commentary on Essays by DeVito and Rudnick. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (5):581 – 603.
Germund Hesslow (1993). Do We Need a Concept of Disease? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 14 (1).
Marianne Boenink (2009). Tensions and Opportunities in Convergence: Shifting Concepts of Disease in Emerging Molecular Medicine. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 3 (3):243-255.
Bjørn Hofmann (2005). Simplified Models of the Relationship Between Health and Disease. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (5):355-377.
Lennart Nordenfelt (1993). On the Relevance and Importance of the Notion of Disease. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 14 (1).
Kazem Sadegh-Zadeh (2000). Fuzzy Health, Illness, and Disease. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (5):605 – 638.
Jozsef Kovács (1989). Concepts of Health and Disease. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (3):261-267.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #64,426 of 1,096,960 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #17,572 of 1,096,960 )
How can I increase my downloads?