Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (5):571-584 (1995)
|Abstract||I argued that a value-free account of our concept of <span class='Hi'>disease</span> cannot be given. Part of this argument consisted in showing that diseases as a class do not constitute a natural kind. To understand this, we need only see that we define and classify conditions into diseases and non-diseases not in terms of their causes but in terms of their effects. While no philosophical position is watertight, the arguments overwhelmingly favour the conclusion that diseases do not constitute a natural kind. Keywords: <span class='Hi'>Disease</span>, natural kind, value-laden CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne (2010). The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments. Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
H. E. Baber (1987). How Bad Is Rape? Hypatia 2 (2):125 - 138.
J. L. Schellenberg (2005). The Hiddenness Argument Revisited (II). Religious Studies 41 (3):287 - 303.
P. X. Monaghan (2010). A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms. Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
H. M. Malm (1989). Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum. Hypatia 4 (3):128 - 135.
Robert D.'Amico (1995). Is Disease a Natural Kind? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (5):551-569.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads8 ( #124,537 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,010 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?