ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2007
A qualified defence of a naturalist theory of health.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- What is a cure through gene therapy? An analysis and evaluation of the use of "cure".Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Article
- Can hemophilia be cured? It depends on the definition.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Review
- Justificatory explanations in machine learning: for increased transparency through documenting how key concepts drive and underpin design and engineering decisions.AI & society · 2022Article
- Health and disease as practical concepts: exploring function in context-specific definitions.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Review
- Aging and the prudential lifespan account.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- On illness, disease, and priority: a framework for more fruitful debates.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- How to distinguish medicalization from over-medicalization?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Aging as disease.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015Article
- A living systems perspective on health.Medical hypotheses · 2014Article
- Defining disease beyond conceptual analysis: an analysis of conceptual analysis in philosophy of medicine.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2013Article
- Health, Happiness and Human Enhancement-Dealing with Unexpected Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation.Neuroethics · 2013Article
- On the relationship between individual and population health.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2009Article
- Conceptualising health: insights from the capability approach.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2008Article
- The significance of the concept of disease for justice in health care.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The paper contrasts Lennart Nordenfelt's normative theory of health with the naturalists' point of view, especially in the version developed by Christopher Boorse. In the first part it defends Boorse's analysis of disease against the charge that it falls short of its own standards by not being descriptive. The second part of the paper sets out to analyse the positive concept of health and introduces a distinction between a positive definition of health ('health' is not defined as absence of disease but in positive terms) and a positive conception of health (health is seen as an ideal). An objection against Nordenfelt's account is developed by making use of a specific example of an ambitious athlete. It is stated that Nordenfelt's conceptualisation includes too many phenomena under the umbrella of ill health. An ideal conception of health like Nordenfelt's is in danger of supporting medicalization. In conclusion, although Nordenfelt's theory is not altogether rejected and even seen in congruence with Boorse's account, it is claimed that the naturalistic framework should obtain conceptual priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.