Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Normality and naturalness: A comparison of the meanings of concepts used within veterinary medicine and human medicine

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyses the different connotations of “normality” and “being natural,” bringing together the theoretical discussion from both human medicine and veterinary medicine. We show how the interpretations of the concepts in the different areas could be mutually fruitful. It appears that the conceptions of “natural” are more elaborate in veterinary medicine, and can be of value to human medicine. In particular they can nuance and correct conceptions of nature in human medicine that may be too idealistic. Correspondingly, the wide ranging conceptions of “normal” in human medicine may enrich conceptions in veterinary medicine, where the discussions seem to be sparse. We do not argue that conceptions from veterinary medicine should be used in human medicine and vice versa, but only that it could be done and that it may well be fruitful. Moreover, there are overlaps between some notions of normal and natural, and further conceptual analysis on this overlap is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Including applied ethology, which is a field with extensive discussion on the theoretical aspects of animal welfare. We have chosen to use veterinary medicine as a simplified term for both of these branches of science.

  2. See also [17, 18].

  3. The notion of nature can also be found in the conceptual debate on health and disease, where whether these terms refer to “natural kinds” is discussed. The debate on natural kinds refers to various naturalistic perspectives. Discussions of concepts as natural kinds are interesting and important, but are beyond the scope of this article.

  4. Unfortunately, the same holds for the concept of health within veterinary medicine (see Lerner [11] for a thorough discussion on this).

  5. See also Lerner [10, ch. 6] for a discussion on expert Swedish veterinarians’ usage of the terms.

References

  1. Mendl, Michael, Oliver H.P. Burman, Richard M.A. Parker, and Elizabeth S. Paul. 2009. Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: Emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith, J. David. 2009. The study of animal metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(9): 389–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rollin, Bernard E. 1983. The concept of illness in veterinary medicine. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 182(2): 122–125.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nordenfelt, Lennart. 2006. Animal and human health and welfare: A comparative philosophical analysis. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rollin, Bernard E. 2006. Science and ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Gunnarsson, Stefan. 2006. The conceptualisation of health and disease in veterinary medicine. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 48: 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hofmann, Bjørn. 2003. Medicine as téchnê: A perspective from antiquity. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28(4): 403–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Enserink, Martin. 2007. Initiative aims to merge animal and human health science to benefit both. Science 316: 1553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Murphy, Edmond. 1976. The logic of medicine. Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hofmann, Bjørn. 2008. Hva er sykdom?. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lerner, Henrik. 2008. The concepts of health, well-being and welfare as applied to animals: A philosophical analysis of the concepts with regard to the differences between animals. PhD diss. Linköping University.

  12. Wakefield, Jerome C. 1992. The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist 47(3): 373–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas, Julia A., and Peter B. Moyle. 2002. Reconfiguring modernity: Concepts of nature in Japanese political ideology. Ewing, NJ: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rollin, Bernard E. 2006. Animal rights and human morality. 3rd ed. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bostock, Stephen. 1993. Zoos and animal rights: The ethics of keeping animals. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Lidfors, Lena, Charlotte Berg, and Bo Algers. 2005. Integration of natural behaviour in housing systems. Ambio 34(4–5): 325–330.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Algers, Bo. 1990. Naturligt beteende—ett naturligt begrepp? Svensk Veterinärtidning 42(12): 517–519.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Algers, Bo. 2001. Naturligt beteende som riktlinje i djurhållningen. In The proceedings of Ekologiskt Lantbruk Ultuna 13–15 november 2001, 114–117. Uppsala, Centrum för Uthålligt Lantbruk, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet.

  19. Malm, Kerstin. 2004. Naturligt beteende—finns det? Djurskyddet 112(5): 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boorse, Christopher. 1975. On the distinction between disease and illness. Philosophy & Public Affairs 5: 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Boorse, Christopher. 1976. What a theory of mental health should be. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 6: 62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Boorse, Christopher. 1977. Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of science 44: 542–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Boorse, Christopher. 1997. A rebuttal on health. In What is disease?, ed. J. Humber, and R. Almeder. New Jersey: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wakefield, Jerome C. 1996. Dysfunction as a value free concept: A reply to Sadler and Agich. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology 2(3): 233–346.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Aspinall, K.W. 1976. First steps in veterinary science. London: Baillière Tindall.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Löliger, Hans C. 1985. Poultry health as a criterion of welfare. In Proceedings of the second European symposium on poultry welfare, 56–62. Celle, Germany: German Branch of the World’s Poultry Science Association.

  27. Murphy, Edmond A. 1972. The normal and the perils of the sylleptic argument. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 15: 566–582.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Murphy, Edmond A. 1973. The normal. American Journal of Epidemiology 98: 403–411.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy, Edmond A. 1979. The epistemology of normality. Psychological Medicine 9: 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Canguilhem, Georges. 1978. On the normal and the pathological. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Helbig, Andreas J., Alan G. Knox, David T. Parkin, George Sangster, and Martin Collinson. 2002. Guidelines for assigning species rank. Ibis 144: 518–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lindstrøm, Jon A. 2009. Carving mental disorder at the joints: An essay in the philosophy of psychopathology. PhD diss. University of Oslo.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was partly financed by a travel grant from NordForsk Nordic Network for the Philosophy of Medicine and Medical Ethics (NNPMME).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, P.O. Box 234, 532 23, Skara, Sweden

    Henrik Lerner

  2. University of Oslo, Center for Medical Ethics, P.O. Box 1130 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway

    Bjørn Hofmann

Authors
  1. Henrik Lerner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bjørn Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik Lerner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lerner, H., Hofmann, B. Normality and naturalness: A comparison of the meanings of concepts used within veterinary medicine and human medicine. Theor Med Bioeth 32, 403–412 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-011-9184-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-011-9184-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation