ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2007
An agenda for future debate on concepts of health and disease.
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 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interoceptive experiences and ecological care: an embodied approach within therapeutical realms.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Does disease incite a stronger moral appeal than health?BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Health and environment from adaptation to adaptivity: a situated relational account.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2022Article
- Wherein is the concept of disease normative? From weak normativity to value-conscious naturalism.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- A new path for humanistic medicine.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2018Article
- The overdiagnosis of what? On the relationship between the concepts of overdiagnosis, disease, and diagnosis.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017Article
- Some thoughts on phenomenology and medicine.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017Article
- On human health.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015Article
- Biological pathology from an organizational perspective.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2015Article
- Health, Happiness and Human Enhancement-Dealing with Unexpected Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation.Neuroethics · 2013Article
- The application of the Drug User Quality of Life Scale (DUQOL) in Australia.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2012Article
- Molecular medicine and concepts of disease: the ethical value of a conceptual analysis of emerging biomedical technologies.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2010Article
- Tensions and Opportunities in Convergence: Shifting Concepts of Disease in Emerging Molecular Medicine.Nanoethics · 2009Article
- On the relationship between individual and population health.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2009Article
- A two-dimensional theory of health.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2007Review
- The significance of the concept of disease for justice in health care.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2007Review
- What Makes Some Diseases More Typical than Others? A Survey on the Impact of Disease Characteristics and Professional Background on Disease Typicality.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- An Exploration of Knowledge and Attitudes of Medical Students and Rheumatologists to Placebo and Nocebo Effects: Threshold Concepts in Clinical Practice.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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 traditional contrast between naturalist and normativist disease concepts fails to capture the most salient features of the health concepts debate. By using health concepts as a window on background notions of medical science and ethics, I show how Christopher Boorse (an influential naturalist) and Lennart Nordenfelt (an influential normativist) actually share deep assumptions about the character of medicine. Their disease concepts attempt, in different ways, to shore up the same medical model. For both, health concepts function like demarcation criteria in the philosophy of science: they mark off the jurisdiction of medical science, and protect it from an inappropriate intrusion of socioeconomic factors, which threaten the integrity of modern medicine. These views are challenged by new developments in healthcare such as managed care and total quality review. To frame the health concepts debate in a way that better captures the issues integral to these new developments, I advance a new way of reading the distinction between weak and strong normativists. Strong normativists are skeptical of the demarcation project, think facts and values cannot be disentangled, and hold that socioeconomic conditions unavoidably influence how pathology is understood. The new health concepts debate should be framed as one between weak and strong normativists, and it concerns how we should respond to the current developments in health care.
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.