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

Anke Bueter*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalMedicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Volume22
Issue3
Pages (from-to)463-474
Number of pages12
ISSN1386-7423
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2019
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Concepts of disease and illness
  • Christopher Boorse
  • Reverse view
  • Lennart Nordenfelt
  • Psychiatric classification
  • MENTAL-DISORDER
  • HEALTH

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'On illness, disease, and priority: a framework for more fruitful debates'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this