Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 19–27 | Cite as

An agenda for future debate on concepts of health and disease



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.


concepts of health and disease demarcation criteria medical values normativism social constructivism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Angell M. (1987). Medicine: The Endangered Patient-Centered Ethic. Hastings Center Report 17:12–13Google Scholar
  2. Boorse C. (1975). On the Distinction between Disease and Illness. Philosophy and Public Affairs 5:49–68Google Scholar
  3. Boorse C. (1977). Health as a Theoretical Concept. Philosophy of Science 44:542–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boorse C. (1997). A Rebuttal on Health. In: Humber J., Almeder R. (eds) What is Disease. Humana Press, NJ, pp. 1–134Google Scholar
  5. Brett A., McCullough L.B. (1986). When Patients Request Specific Interventions: Defining the Limits of the Physician’s Obligation. New England Journal of Medicine 315:1347–1351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canguilhem, G.: 1991[1966], The Normal and the Pathological. New York: Zone BooksGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassell E. (1991). The Nature of Suffering. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Corrigan, J., L.T. Kohn and M.S. Donaldson (eds.): 2000, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Cribb A. (2001). Reconfiguring Professional Ethics. HEC Forum 13:111–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Eddy D. (1996). Clinical Decision Making: From Theory to Practice. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelhardt H.T. (1996). Foundations of Bioethics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleck, L.: 1979[1935], Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Flexner, A.: 1910, Medical Education in the United States and Canada. A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Carnegie FoundationGoogle Scholar
  14. Foucault, M.: 1975, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archeology of Medical Perception, A.M. Sheridan Smith (tr.). New York: Vintage BooksGoogle Scholar
  15. Fulford K.W. (1989). Moral Theory and Medical Practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Hesslow G. (1993). Do We Need a Concept of Disease? Theoretical Medicine 14:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Khushf G. (1997). Why Bioethics Needs the Philosophy of Medicine: Some Implications of Reflection on Concepts of Health and Disease. Theoretical Medicine 18:145–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Khushf G. (1998). A Radical Rupture in the Paradigm of Modern Medicine: Conflicts of Interest, Fiduciary Obligations, and the Scientific Ideal. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24:415–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khushf G. (1999). The Case for Managed Care: Reappraising Medical and Sociopolitical Ideals. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24:415–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Khushf G. (2000). Organizational Ethics and the Medical Professional: Reappraising Roles and Responsibilities. In: Kissell J., Thomasma D. (eds), The Health Care Professional as Friend and Healer. Georgetown University Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Khushf G. (2001). What is at Issue in the Debate about Concepts of Health and Disease? Framing the Problem of Demarcation for a Post-Positivist Era of Medicine. In: Nordenfelt L. (eds), Health, Science, and Ordinary Language. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 123–169Google Scholar
  22. Kleinman A. (1988). The Illness Narratives: Suffering, Healing, and the Human Condition. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohn, L.T., J.M. Corrigan and M.S. Donaldson (eds.): 2001, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Leder D. (1992). A Tale of Two Bodies: the Cartesian Corpse and the Lived Body. In: Leder D. (ed) The Body in Medical Thought and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 17–35Google Scholar
  25. Morreim H. (1995). Balancing Act: The New Medical Ethics of Medicine’s New Economics. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Nordenfelt L. (1995). On the Nature of Health: An Action-Theoretic Approach, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  27. Nordenfelt L. (2001). Health, Science, and Ordinary Language. Rodopi, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. Nordenfelt L. (2007) The Concepts of Health and Illness Revisited. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10:xx–xxGoogle Scholar
  29. Pellegrino, E.: 1980, ‘Medical Economics and Medical Ethics: Points of Conflict and Reconciliation’, Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 69 (March), 174–183Google Scholar
  30. Rodwin M. (1993). Medicine, Money and Morals: Physician’s Conflicts of Interest. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Veatch R. (1995). Abandoning Informed Consent. Hastings Center Report 25(2):127–135Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Center for BioethicsUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations