Advertisement

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 391–410 | Cite as

Putting phenomenology in its place: some limits of a phenomenology of medicine

  • Jonathan ShollEmail author
Article

Abstract

Several philosophers have recently argued that phenomenology is well-suited to help understand the concepts of health, disease, and illness. The general claim is that by better analysing how illness appears to or is experienced by ill individuals—incorporating the first-person perspective—some limitations of what is seen as the currently dominant third-person or ‘naturalistic’ approaches to understand health and disease can be overcome. In this article, after discussing some of the main insights and benefits of the phenomenological approach, I develop three general critiques of it. First, I show that what is often referred to as naturalism tends to be misunderstood and/or misrepresented, resulting in straw-man arguments. Second, the concept of normality is often problematically employed such that some aspects of naturalism are actually presupposed by many phenomenologists of medicine. Third, several of the key phenomenological insights and concepts, e.g. having vs. being a body, the alienation of illness, the epistemic role of the first-person perspective, and the idea of health within illness, each bring with them new problems that limit their utility. While acknowledging the possible contributions of phenomenology, these criticisms point to some severe limitations of bringing phenomenological insights to bear on the problems facing philosophy of medicine that should be addressed if phenomenology is to add anything substantially new to its debates.

Keywords

Phenomenology Philosophy of medicine Naturalism Disease Illness Normality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Andreas De Block, James DiFrisco, and Jeff Sholl for their critical and ultimately helpful comments on previous drafts. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this article for their useful suggestions. This research was undertaken as part of a post-doctoral position funded by the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen (Research Foundation-Flanders).

References

  1. 1.
    Carel, H., and R. Cooper (eds.). 2013. Health, illness and disease: Philosophical essays. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ereshefsky, M. 2009. Defining ‘health’ and ‘disease’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40(3): 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamilton, R.P. 2010. The concept of health: Beyond normativism and naturalism. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16: 323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aho, J., and K. Aho. 2008. Body matters: A phenomenology of sickness, disease, and illness. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carel, H. 2008. Illness. Durham: Acumen Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carel, H. 2011. Phenomenology and its application in medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ratcliffe, M. 2008. Feelings of being: Phenomenology, psychiatry and the sense of reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Svenaeus, F. 2001. The hermeneutics of medicine and the phenomenology of health. Linköping: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Svenaeus, F. 2013. Naturalistic and phenomenological theories of health: Distinctions and connections. In Phenomenology and naturalism: Exploring the relationship between human experience and nature, ed. H. Carel and D. Meacham, 221–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svenaeus, F. 2013. What is phenomenology of medicine? Embodiment, illness and being-in-the-world. In Health, illness and disease: Philosophical essays, ed. H. Carel and R. Cooper, 97–111. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zaner, R. 1981. The context of self: A phenomenological inquiry using medicine as a clue. Ohio: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Toombs, S.K. 1988. Illness and the paradigm of lived body. Theoretical Medicine 9: 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Toombs, S.K. (ed.). 2001. Handbook of phenomenology and medicine. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Svenaeus, F. 2000. Das unheimliche—Towards a phenomenology of illness. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carel, H. 2012. Phenomenology as a resource for patients. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37: 96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gergel, T.L. 2012. Medicine and the individual: Is phenomenology the answer? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 18: 1102–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fuchs, T. 2013. Temporality and psychopathology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 12(1): 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. Trans. C. Smith. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boorse, C. 1975. On the distinction between disease and illness. Philosophy and Public Affairs 5(1): 49–68.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Husserl, E. 1977. Phenomenological psychology: Lectures, summer semester, 1925. Trans. J. Scanlon. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zahavi, D. 2013. Naturalized phenomenology: A desideratum or a category mistake? In Phenomenology and naturalism: Exploring the relationship between human experience and nature, ed. H. Carel and D. Meacham, 23–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petitot, J., F.J. Varela, B. Pachoud, and J.-M. Roy (eds.). 1999. Naturalising phenomenology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carel, H., and D. Meacham (eds.). 2013. Phenomenology and naturalism: Exploring the relationship between human experience and nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Papineau, D. 2007. ‘Naturalism’. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
  25. 25.
    De Caro, M., and D. Macarthur (eds.). 2010. Naturalism and normativity. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dupré, J. 2010. How to be naturalistic without being simplistic in the study of human nature. In Naturalism and normativity, ed. M. De Caro and D. Macarthur, 289–303. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eisenberg, L. 1977. Disease and illness: Distinctions between professional and popular ideas of sickness. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 1: 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Conrad, P., and K.K. Barker. 2010. The social construction of illness: Key insights and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51(5): S67–S79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boorse, C. 1997. A rebuttal on health. In What is disease?, ed. J.M. Humber and R.F. Almeder, 3–134. Totowa: Humana Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wakefield, J. 1992. The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist 47(3): 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wakefield, J. 2011. Darwin, functional explanation, and the philosophy of psychiatry. In Maladapting minds: Philosophy, psychiatry, and evolutionary theory, ed. P.R. Adriaens and A. De Block, 143–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kingma, E. 2014. Naturalism about health and disease: Adding nuance for progress. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39(6): 590–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boorse, C. 1976. Wright on functions. Philosophical Review 85(1): 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bateson, P., and P. Gluckman. 2011. Plasticity, robustness, development and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Laland, K.N., and G.R. Brown. 2006. Niche construction, human behavior, and the adaptive-lag hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sholl, J. forthcoming. Contextualizing medical norms: Georges Canguilhem’s Surnaturalism. In Naturalism in philosophy of health: Issues, limits and implications, ed. É. Giroux. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ananth, M. 2008. In defence of an evolutionary concept of health: Nature, norms, and human biology. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schulkin, J. 2003. Rethinking homeostasis: Allostatic regulation in physiology and pathophysiology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Richerson, P.J., and R. Boyd. 2005. Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gilbert, S.F., and D. Epel. 2009. Ecological developmental biology: Integrating epigenetics, medicine, and evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jablonka, E., and M.J. Lamb. 2004. Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Borsboom, D., and A.O.J. Cramer. 2013. Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9: 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barabási, A.L., N. Gulbahce, and J. Loscalzo. 2011. Network medicine: A network-based approach to human disease. Nature Reviews: Genetics 12(1): 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gross, F. 2011. What systems biology can tell us about disease. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 33: 389–396.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dupré, J. 2012. Processes of life: Essays in the philosophy of biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dubos, R. 1965. Man adapting. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Canguilhem, G. 1989. The normal and the pathological. Trans. C.R. Fawcett and R.S. Cohen. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Murphy, D. 2006. Psychiatry in the scientific image. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sapolsky, R.M. 2004. Why zebras don’t get ulcers, 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Childs, B., C. Wiener, and D. Valle. 2005. A science of the individual: Implications for a medical school curriculum. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 6: 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Morange, M. 2008. Retour sur le normal et le pathologique. In Philosophie et médecine: en hommage à Georges Canguilhem, dir. A. Fagot-Largeault, C. Debru, and M. Morange, ed. H.-J. Han, 155–169. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Amundson, R. 2000. Against normal function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31(1): 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kingma, E. 2010. Paracetamol, poison, and polio: Why Boorse’s account of function fails to distinguish health and disease. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61: 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sholl, J., and A. De Block. 2015. Towards a critique of normalization: Canguilhem and Boorse. In Medicine and society: New perspectives in continental philosophy, ed. D. Meacham, 141–158. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Boorse, C. 1977. Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of Science 44(4): 542–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Foucault, M. 2003. The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. Trans. A.M. Sheridan. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Canguilhem, G. 2008. Knowledge of life. Trans. S. Geroulanos and D. Ginsberg. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rose, N., and J.M. Abi-Rached. 2013. Neuro: The new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hucklenbroich, P. 2014. “Disease entity” as the key theoretical concept of medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39(6): 609–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fábrega, H. 1997. Evolution of sickness and healing. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Canguilhem, G. 2012. Writings on medicine. Trans. S. Geroulanos and T. Meyers. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yagoda, M. 2013. ADHD is different for women. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/adhd-is-different-for-women/381158/?single_page=true. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
  63. 63.
    Kendler, K.S., P. Zachar, and C. Craver. 2011. What kinds of things are psychiatric disorders? Psychological Medicine 41: 1143–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Analytic Philosophy, Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of Leuven (KU Leuven)LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations