On illness, disease, and priority: a framework for more fruitful debates

Anke Bueter

doi:10.1007/s11019-019-09886-7

On illness, disease, and priority: a framework for more fruitful debates

^*Corresponding author af dette arbejde

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avis › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review

1 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

The distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' has played an important role in the debate between naturalism and normativism. Both employ these notions, yet disagree on whether to assign priority to 'disease' or 'illness'. I argue that this discussion suffers from implicit differences in the underlying interpretations: While for naturalists the distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' is one between a descriptive and a prescriptive notion, for normativists it is one between cause and effect. This discrepancy is connected to different interpretations of priority, which also tend to be conflated in the debate. I disambiguate these different usages and develop a distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' that is theoretically neutral with regard to naturalism or normativism. Moreover, I propose a concept of heuristic priority that could serve as a common focus. This framework can avoid common confusions by providing a shared terminology and thereby help to make debates on disease-concepts more fruitful.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Vol/bind	22
Nummer	3
Sider (fra-til)	463-474
Antal sider	12
ISSN	1386-7423
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-019-09886-7
Status	Udgivet - sep. 2019
Udgivet eksternt	Ja

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1007/s11019-019-09886-7

https://rdcu.be/bhhF6

Citationsformater

@article{b1042a394d124f7fafbfbff1ff93ec5c,

title = "On illness, disease, and priority: a framework for more fruitful debates",

abstract = "The distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' has played an important role in the debate between naturalism and normativism. Both employ these notions, yet disagree on whether to assign priority to 'disease' or 'illness'. I argue that this discussion suffers from implicit differences in the underlying interpretations: While for naturalists the distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' is one between a descriptive and a prescriptive notion, for normativists it is one between cause and effect. This discrepancy is connected to different interpretations of priority, which also tend to be conflated in the debate. I disambiguate these different usages and develop a distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' that is theoretically neutral with regard to naturalism or normativism. Moreover, I propose a concept of heuristic priority that could serve as a common focus. This framework can avoid common confusions by providing a shared terminology and thereby help to make debates on disease-concepts more fruitful.",

keywords = "Concepts of disease and illness, Christopher Boorse, Reverse view, Lennart Nordenfelt, Psychiatric classification, MENTAL-DISORDER, HEALTH",

author = "Anke Bueter",

year = "2019",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1007/s11019-019-09886-7",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

pages = "463--474",

journal = "Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy",

issn = "1386-7423",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On illness, disease, and priority

T2 - a framework for more fruitful debates

AU - Bueter, Anke

PY - 2019/9

Y1 - 2019/9

N2 - The distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' has played an important role in the debate between naturalism and normativism. Both employ these notions, yet disagree on whether to assign priority to 'disease' or 'illness'. I argue that this discussion suffers from implicit differences in the underlying interpretations: While for naturalists the distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' is one between a descriptive and a prescriptive notion, for normativists it is one between cause and effect. This discrepancy is connected to different interpretations of priority, which also tend to be conflated in the debate. I disambiguate these different usages and develop a distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' that is theoretically neutral with regard to naturalism or normativism. Moreover, I propose a concept of heuristic priority that could serve as a common focus. This framework can avoid common confusions by providing a shared terminology and thereby help to make debates on disease-concepts more fruitful.

AB - The distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' has played an important role in the debate between naturalism and normativism. Both employ these notions, yet disagree on whether to assign priority to 'disease' or 'illness'. I argue that this discussion suffers from implicit differences in the underlying interpretations: While for naturalists the distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' is one between a descriptive and a prescriptive notion, for normativists it is one between cause and effect. This discrepancy is connected to different interpretations of priority, which also tend to be conflated in the debate. I disambiguate these different usages and develop a distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' that is theoretically neutral with regard to naturalism or normativism. Moreover, I propose a concept of heuristic priority that could serve as a common focus. This framework can avoid common confusions by providing a shared terminology and thereby help to make debates on disease-concepts more fruitful.

KW - Concepts of disease and illness

KW - Christopher Boorse

KW - Reverse view

KW - Lennart Nordenfelt

KW - Psychiatric classification

KW - MENTAL-DISORDER

KW - HEALTH

U2 - 10.1007/s11019-019-09886-7

DO - 10.1007/s11019-019-09886-7

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 30652249

SN - 1386-7423

VL - 22

SP - 463

EP - 474

JO - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

JF - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

IS - 3

ER -

On illness, disease, and priority: a framework for more fruitful debates

Abstract

Adgang til dokumentet

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater