Categories of health and disease/illness in the philosophy of medicine: biomedical and humanistic models
https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2023-21-2-81-92
Abstract
The categories of health and disease/illness are conceptualized from the perspective of the philosophy of medicine. Philosophical contradictions are revealed, which, fueling the debate between naturalism and normativism, prevent biomedicine from developing a single satisfactory understanding of these categories. The theoretical and practical consequences of such biomedicine features as pathocentrism, identification of health with complete well-being, dichotomy of health and disease in the absence of a clear criterion for their differentiation are analyzed. The role of humanistic approaches to the medicine rehumanization is investigated with a focus on their balanced view of health and disease/illness, attentive to the fundamental vulnerability of human nature.
About the Author
O. S. Gilyazova
Ural Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga S. Gilyazova, PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Center for the Development of Universal Competences
Yekaterinburg
References
1. Averkina E. Humanitarian Space of Medical Discourse // Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2014. № 12. p. 103–110. (In Russian)
2. Baronov D. Biomedicine: An ontological dissection // Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2008. № 29. Р. 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9070-4.
3. Blythe J. A., Curlin F. A. “Just do your job”: Technology, bureaucracy, and the eclipse of conscience in contemporary medicine // Th eoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2018. № 39. p. 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-018-9474-8
4. Boorse C. Health as a theoretical concept // Philosophy of Science. 1977. № 44(4). Р. 542–573. https://doi.org/10.1086/288768
5. Dawber T. R. The Framingham Study: The epidemiology of atherosclerotic disease. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
6. Giroux É. Epidemiology and the bio-statistical theory of disease: A challenging perspective // Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2015. № 36. Р. 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-015-9327-7
7. Guerrero J. D. On a naturalist theory of health: A critique // Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 2010. № 41. Р. 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2009.12.008
8. Hershenov D. B. A naturalist response to Kingma’s critique of naturalist accounts of disease // Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2020. № 41. p. 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-020-09526-9
9. Hucklenbroich P. “Disease Entity” as the Key Th eoretical Concept of Medicine // Th e Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2014. vol. 39. is. 6. p. 609–633. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhu040
10. Isaev A. V. The Value of “Natural Health” and Criticism of the Concept of Normalization of Health // NOMOTHETIKA: Philosophy. Sociology. Law. 2022. № 47(1). p. 150–154. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-746X-2022-47-1-150-154.
11. Kerdeman D. Preparing Educational Researchers: Th e Role of Self-Doubt // Educational Theory. 2015. vol. 65. no. 6. p. 719–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12144.
12. Kingma E. Naturalism about health and disease: Adding nuance for progress // Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2014. № 39. p. 590–608. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhu037.
13. Lavrentiev A. V. Philosophical-Medical and Theological Perspectives of Understanding the Phenomenon of Disease // Khristianskoye Chteniye. 2022. № 4. p. 167–179. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.47132/1814-5574_2022_4_167.
14. Nordenfelt L. On Concepts of Positive Health // T. Schramme, S. Edwards (eds). Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine. Dordrecht: Springer, 2017. p. 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8688-1_2.
15. O’Mahony S. Aft er the golden age: What is medicine for? // Lancet. 2019. № 393(10183). P. 1798–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30901-8.
16. Schwartz P. H. Defi ning dysfunction: Natural selection, design, and drawing a line // Philosophy of Science. 2007. № 74. p. 364–385. https://doi.org/10.1086/521970.
17. Serebrennikova A. V. Philosophy of medicine: Modern aspects // Natsional’naya assotsiatsiya uchenykh. 2022. № 79(1). P. 40–43. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.31618/nas.2413-5291.2022.1.79.596.
18. Shutaleva A. V. Integral approach and the problem of a holistic world view in medicine // Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2011. № 18(233). Р. 131–133. (in Russian).
19. Sinyukova N. A. Subjectivization of the illness experience as a humanistic paradigm of modern medicine // The Siberian Journal of Philosophy. 2018. vol. 16. no. 4. P. 147–158. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2018-16-4-147-158.
20. Svenaeus F. Illness as unhomelike being-in-the-world: Heidegger and the phenomenology of medicine // Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2011. № 14. P. 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-010-9301-0
21. Toombs S. K. The healing relationship: Edmund Pellegrino’s philosophy of the physician–patient encounter // Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2019. № 40. P. 217– 229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-019-09490-z
22. Toombs S. K. The meaning of illness: A phenomenological approach to the patient–physician relationship // Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 1987. № 12. P. 2 19–240.
23. Wakefi eld J. C. Mental Disorders as Genuine Medical Conditions // T. Schramme, S. Edwards (eds). Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine. Dordrecht: Springer, 2017. P. 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8688-1_1.
Review
For citations:
Gilyazova O.S. Categories of health and disease/illness in the philosophy of medicine: biomedical and humanistic models. Siberian Journal of Philosophy. 2023;21(2):81-92. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2023-21-2-81-92
Views:
337
Email this article 