Journal
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 80-85Publisher
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jme.27.2.80
Keywords
-
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This open letter to Christopher Boorse is a response to his influential naturalist (value-excluding) analysts of disease from the perspective of linguistic-analytic value theory. The hey linguistic-analytic point against Boorse (and other naturalists) is that, although defining disease value free, he land they) continue to use the term with clear evaluative,e connotations. A descriptivist (value-entailing) analysis of disease would allow value-free definition consistently with value-laden use: but descriptivism fails when applied to mental disorder because it depends on shared values whereas the values relevant to mental disorders are highly diverse. A parr-function analysis, similarly, although initially persuasive for physical disorders,fails with the psychotic mental disorders because these, characteristically, involve disturbances of the rationality of the person as a whole. The difficulties encountered in applying: naturalism to mental disorders point, linguistic-analytically, to the possibility that there is, after all, an evaluative element of meaning, deeply hidden bur still logically operative, in the concept of disease.
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