Journal
STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE PART C-STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGICAL AND BIOMEDIAL SCIENCES
Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 221-227Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2009.06.005
Keywords
Disease; Health; Naturalism; Normal function; Normativism
Categories
Funding
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Calgary Institute for the Humanities
Ask authors/readers for more resources
How should we define 'health' and 'disease'? There are three main positions in the literature. Naturalists desire value-free definitions based on scientific theories. Normativists believe that our uses of 'health' and 'disease' reflect value judgments. Hybrid theorists offer definitions containing both normativist and naturalist elements. This paper discusses the problems with these views and offers an alternative approach to the debate over 'health' and 'disease'. Instead of trying to find the correct definitions of `health' and 'disease' we should explicitly talk about the considerations that are central in medical discussions, namely state descriptions (descriptions of physiological or psychological states) and normative claims (claims about what states we value or disvalue). This distinction avoids the problems facing the major approaches to defining 'health' and 'disease', and it more clearly captures what matters in medical discussions. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available