Skip to main content

Disability and Medical Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Philosophical Reflections on Disability

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 104))

Abstract

This essay compares in a preliminary way, concepts of disability to those of medicine, especially medical theory. Besides minor theses, I reach four major, not wholly original, conclusions. First, it does not seem that, in most usage, ‘disability’ has a clear enough meaning to determine how disability relates to medical status. Whether in common sense, ethics, or law, disability is a highly indeterminate concept. One reason is that the few paradigm cases at its core fall within many possible outer boundaries. Worse yet, even some core examples are disabilities in one context but not another. So, in practice, there is no one disability concept—or, if there is, it is ambiguous in including several variables fixed only by context. Second, all types of practical disability may be species of a value-free generic concept: organismic dysfunction, or gross impairment. But to call gross impairment disability will have consequences unattractive to many writers. Third, in two important contexts where usage is fairly clear by definition and example, disability currently bears no simple relation to the basic concept of medical theory, disorder or pathological condition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, F. R. (1979). A goal-state theory of function attributions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 9, 493–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • AMA Committee on Medical Rating of Physical Impairment. (1958). Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 9, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, C., Bekoff, M., & Lauder, G. (Eds.). (1998). Nature’s purposes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • APA (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. (DSM-IV-TR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, R. (2000). Against normal function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 31, 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, R., & Lauder, G. V. (1994). Function without purpose: The uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy, 9, 443–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. M. (2002). Mosby’s medical dictionary (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariew, A., Cummins, R., & Perlman, M. (Eds.). (2002). Functions. New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagenstos, S. R. (2000). Subordination, stigma, and “disability”. Virginia Law Review, 86, 397–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2003). Disability. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, C., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. (1999). Exploring disability: A sociological introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedau, M. (1992). Where’s the good in teleology? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 781–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, H. C. (1979). Black’s law dictionary (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanck, P., Hill, E., Siegal, C. D., & Waterstone, M. (2004). Disability, civil rights law and policy. St. Louis, MO: Thomson (West).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C. (1975). On the distinction between disease and illness. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 5, 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C. (1976). Wright on functions. Philosophical Review, 85, 70–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C. (1977). Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of Science, 44, 542–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C. (1987). Concepts of health. In D. VanDeVeer & T. Regan (Eds.), Health care ethics (pp. 359–393). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C. (1997). A rebuttal on health. In J. M. Humber & R. F. Almeder (Eds.), What is disease? (pp. 1–134). Totowa, NJ: Humana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C. (2002). A rebuttal on functions. In A. Ariew, R. Cummins, & M. Perlman (Eds.), Functions (pp. 63–112). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. J. (Ed.) (1999). Function, selection, and design. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clouser, K. D., Culver, C. M., & Gert, B. (1997). Malady. In J. M. Humber & R. F. Almeder, (Eds.), What is disease? (pp. 175–217). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocchiarella, L., & Andersson, G. B. J. (Eds.). (2001). Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment (5th ed.). USA: AMA Press. [AMA Guides].

    Google Scholar 

  • Colker, R. (2005). The disability pendulum: The first decade of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox-White, B., & Boxall, S. F. (2009). Redefining disability: maleficent, unjust, and inconsistent. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 33, 558–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culver, C. M., & Gert, B. (1982). Philosophy in medicine. New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 741–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeter, S. L., & Andersson, G. B. J. (2003). Disability evaluation (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, B. (2008). Disability discrimination: Law and practice (6th ed.). Bristol, UK: Jordans.

    Google Scholar 

  • DPI (1982). Proceedings of the First World Congress. Singapore: Disabled People’s International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, C. D. (2002). Snakes and ladders: Expanding the definition of “major life activity” in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Texas Tech Law Review, 33, 321–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. D. (1997). Dismantling the disability/handicap distinction. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 22, 589–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. (1992). Forbidden grounds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldblum, C. (2000). Definition of disability under federal anti-discrimination law: What happened? Why? And what can we do about it? Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 21, 91–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisancho, A. R. (1993). Human adaptation and accommodation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jette, A. M., & Badley, E. (2002). Conceptual issues in the measurement of work disability. In G. S. Wunderlich, D. P. Rice, & N. L. Amado (Eds.), The Dynamics of Disability (pp. 183–210). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolls, C. (2000). Accommodation mandates. Stanford Law Review, 53, 223–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFave, W. R. (2003). Criminal law (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson (West).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, J. L. (Ed.). (2006). The Gale encyclopedia of medicine (3rd ed.). New York: Thomson Gale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayerson, A. L. (1962). Introduction to insurance. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melander, P. (1997). Analyzing functions: An essay on a fundamental notion in biology. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. S. (1984). Law and psychiatry: Rethinking the relationship. New York: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, E. F. (2000). Human adaptability. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E. A. (1976). The logic of medicine. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. A. H. (Ed.) (1901). A new English dictionary on historical principles (Vol. V). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C. (1997). What it means to be a libertarian. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagi, S. Z. (1965). Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In M. B. Sussman (Ed.), Sociology and rehabilitation (pp. 100–113). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagi, S. Z. (1969). Disability and rehabilitation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagi, S. Z. (1991). Disability concepts revisited: implications for prevention. In A. M. Pope & A. R. Tarlov (Eds.), Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention (pp. 309–327). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCHS (2007). Health, United States 2007. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neander, K. (1991). The teleological notion of function. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 69, 454–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissen, L. (1997). Teleological language in the life sciences. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordenfelt, L. (1987). On the nature of health. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordenfelt, L. (1997). The importance of a disability/handicap distinction. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 22, 607–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahdert, M. C. (2000). Arline’s ghost: some notes on working as a major life activity under the ADA. Temple Policy & Civil Rights Law Review, 9, 303–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznek, L. (1987). The nature of disease. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznek, L. (1997). Evil or Ill? London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, R. D., & Duncan, P. W. (2000). The concepts of impairment and disability. In R. D. Rondinelli & R. T. Katz (Eds.), Impairment rating and disability evaluation (pp. 17–33). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, C. W. (1940). Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary (1st ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis. (20th ed., 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. B., & Taylor, A. E. (Eds.). (1953). Stedman’s medical dictionary (18th ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. (5th ed., 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J. (1971). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, B. P., & Milani, A. A. (2004). Federal disability law in a nutshell (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • UPIAS (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, J. (1992). The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist, 47, 373–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, J. (1999). Evolutionary versus prototype analyses of the concept of disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 374–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, D. (2000). Stigma without impairment: Demedicalizing disability discrimination. In L. P. Francis & A. Silvers (Eds.), Americans with disabilities (pp. 146–162). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, D. (2001). Philosophical issues in the definition and social response to disability. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 219–251). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. C. (2007). Understanding disability law. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield, G. (1997). The disability discrimination act: Analysis of data from an omnibus survey. London: Department of Social Security.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps [ICIDH]. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (1994). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth revision [ICD-10]. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [ICF]. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, A. (2005). The function debate in philosophy. Acta Biotheoretica, 53, 123–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L. (1973). Functions. Philosophical Review, 82, 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, M. J., Sullivan, C. A., & White, R. H. (Eds.). (2008). Cases and materials on employment discrimination (7th ed.). New York: Aspen.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Boorse .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boorse, C. (2009). Disability and Medical Theory. In: Ralston, D., Ho, J. (eds) Philosophical Reflections on Disability. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 104. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2477-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics