ArticleTheoretical medicine and bioethics2015
Biological pathology from an organizational perspective.
Article in Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- What teleology (if any) does the Organisational Approach naturalise?History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2026Article
- Ecosystem health and malfunctions: an organisational perspective.Biology & philosophy · 2023Article
- Health and environment from adaptation to adaptivity: a situated relational account.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2022Article
- Biological normativity: a new hope for naturalism?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Metabolic Disorders in the Transition Period Indicate that the Dairy Cows' Ability to Adapt is Overstressed.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2015Review
- Beyond bioethics: the 5th International Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In contrast to the "normativist" view, "naturalist" theorists claim that the concept of health refers to natural or normal states and propose different characterizations of healthy and diseased conditions that are meant to be objectivist and biologically grounded. In this article, we examine the core concept of these naturalist accounts of disease, i.e., the concept of biological malfunction, and develop a new formulation of the notion of malfunction following the recent organizational approach to functions in the philosophy of biology. We focus on the notions of adaptive regulation and functional presupposition to develop a new conceptual framework that justifies the ascription of malfunctional behaviors to biological systems according to the embodied normativity of biological organizations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25663052What 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.