Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 95–101 | Cite as

Disease prioritarianism: a flawed principle

  • Karim Jebari
Scientific Contribution


Disease prioritarianism is a principle that is often implicitly or explicitly employed in the realm of healthcare prioritization. This principle states that the healthcare system ought to prioritize the treatment of disease before any other problem. This article argues that disease prioritarianism ought to be rejected. Instead, we should adopt ‘the problem-oriented heuristic’ when making prioritizations in the healthcare system. According to this idea, we ought to focus on specific problems and whether or not it is possible and efficient to address them with medical means. This has radical implications for the extension of the healthcare system. First, getting rid of the binary disease/no-disease dichotomy implicit in disease prioritarianism would improve the ability of the healthcare system to address chronic conditions and disabilities that often defy easy classification. Second, the problem-oriented heuristic could empower medical practitioners to address social problems without the need to pathologize these conditions. Third, the problem-oriented heuristic clearly states that what we choose to treat is a normative consideration. Under this assumption, we can engage in a discussion on de-medicalization without distorting preconceptions. Fourth, this pragmatic and de-compartmentalizing approach should allow us to reconsider the term ‘efficiency’.


Medical ethics Medicalization Disease Prioritization Cost-benefit analysis 


  1. Adam, David. 2013. Mental health: on the spectrum. Nature 496(7446): 416–418. doi: 10.1038/496416a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barendregt, Jan J., Luc Bonneux, and Paul J. van der Maas. 1997. The health care costs of smoking. New England Journal of Medicine 337(15): 1052–1057. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199710093371506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boorse, Christopher. 2011. Concepts of health and disease. In Philosophy of medicine, ed. Fred Gifford, 16–13. North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Brülde, Bengt. 2010. On defining ‘mental disorder’: purposes and conditions of adequacy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31(1): 19–33. doi: 10.1007/s11017-010-9133-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caplan, Arthur L., James J. McCartney, and Dominic A. Sisti. 2004. Health, disease, and illness: concepts in medicine. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Crisp, Roger. 2003. Equality, priority, and compassion. Ethics 113(4): 745–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleishman, Sam. 2012. Insomnia: medicalization of sleep may be needed. Nature 491(7425): 527-527. doi: 10.1038/491527d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fraser, Lin, Dan H. Karasic, Walter J. Meyer, and Kevan Wylie. 2010. Recommendations for revision of the dsm diagnosis of gender identity disorder in adults. International Journal of Transgenderism 12(2): 80–85. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2010.509202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenberg, Gary. 2010. Manufacturing depression: the secret history of an american disease. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  10. Henteleff, Harry J., Daniel W. Birch, Peter T. Hallowell, and CAGS/ACS Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery Group. 2013. Cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for severely obese adults with diabetes. Canadian Journal of Surgery 56(5): 353–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hesslow, Germund. 1993. Do we need a concept of disease? Theoretical Medicine 14(1): 1–14. doi: 10.1007/BF00993984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Illich, Ivan. 1982. Medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  13. Juth, Niklas. 2015. Challenges for principles of need in health care. Health Care Analysis 23(1): 73–87.Google Scholar
  14. Kessler, Ronald C., Patricia Berglund, Olga Demler, Robert Jin, Kathleen R. Merikangas, and Ellen E. Walters. 2005. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry 62(6): 593–602. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kingma, Elselijn. 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(2): 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Larochelle, Sébastien, Louis Diguer, Olivier Laverdière, Dominick Gamache, Paul Samuel Greenman, and Jean Descôteaux. 2010. Psychological dimensions of antisocial personality disorder as predictors of psychotherapy noncompletion among sexual offenders. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 74(1): 1–28. doi: 10.1521/bumc.2010.74.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larsson, Jan. 2007. Prioriteringar i hälso- och sjukvården Socialstyrelsen analys och slutsatser utifrån rapporten “Vårdens alltför svåra val?”. 2007-103-4. Socialstyrelsen.
  18. Lichtenstein, Paul, Linda Halldner, Johan Zetterqvist, Arvid Sjölander, Eva Serlachius, Seena Fazel, Niklas Långström, and Henrik Larsson. 2012. Medication for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and criminality. New England Journal of Medicine 367(21): 2006–2014. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1203241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Livingston, James D., and Jennifer E. Boyd. 2010. Correlates and consequences of internalized stigma for people living with mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science and Medicine (1982) 71(12): 2150–2161. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marmot, M.G. 2005. The status syndrome: how social standing affects our health and longevity. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  21. Moynihan, Ray, Iona Heath, and David Henry. 2002. Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. British Medical Journal 324(7342): 886–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mytton, Oliver, Alastair Gray, Mike Rayner, and Harry Rutter. 2007. Could targeted food taxes improve health? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61(8): 689–694. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.047746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD. 2013. What future for health spending?. No. 19. OECD Economics Department Policy Notes.
  24. Rachels, James. 2001. Theory and practice. In Encyclopedia of ethics, ed. Lawrence Becker and Charlotte Becker, 2nd edn. vol. 3, 1706–1708. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Reznek, Lawrie. 1987. The nature of disease. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  26. Salkever, D.S. 1995. Updated estimates of earnings benefits from reduced exposure of children to environmental lead. Environmental Research 70(1): 1–6. doi: 10.1006/enrs.1995.1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sandel, Michael J. 2007. The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Scheffler, Richard M., Timothy T. Brown, Brent D. Fulton, Stephen P. Hinshaw, Peter Levine, and Susan Stone. 2009. Positive association between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication use and academic achievement during elementary school. Pediatrics 123(5): 1273–1279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wakefield, J.C. 1992. The concept of mental disorder. on the boundary between biological facts and social values. The American Psychologist 47(3): 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang, D., M. Connock, P. Barton, A. Fry-Smith, P. Aveyard, and D. Moore. 2008. ‘Cut down to quit’ with nicotine replacement therapies in smoking cessation: a systematic review of effectiveness and economic analysis. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 12(2): iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–135.Google Scholar
  31. Wang, Haidong, Laura Dwyer-Lindgren, Katherine T. Lofgren, Julie Knoll Rajaratnam, Jacob R. Marcus, Alison Levin-Rector, Carly E. Levitz, Alan D. Lopez, and Christopher J.L. Murray. 2012. Age-specific and sex-specific mortality in 187 countries, 1970–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet 380(9859): 2071–2094. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61719-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilkinson, Stephen. 2000. Is ‘normal grief’ a mental disorder? The Philosophical Quarterly 50(200): 290–304. doi: 10.1111/j.0031-8094.2000.00186.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wray, Sharon, and Ruth Deery. 2008. The medicalization of body size and women’s healthcare. Health Care for Women International 29(3): 227–243. doi: 10.1080/07399330701738291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Institute for Futures StudiesStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations