On the difficulty of defining disease

a Darwinian perspective.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Most attempts to craft a definition of disease seem to have tackled two tasks simultaneously: 1) trying to create a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria that correspond to medical usage of the word disease and 2) using this definition to understand the essence of what disease is. The first task has been somewhat accomplished, but cannot reach closure because the concept of "disease" is based on a prototype, not a logical category. The second task cannot be accomplished by deduction, but only by understanding how the body works and what each component is for, in evolutionary detail. An evolutionary view of the origins of the body and its vulnerabilities that result in disease provides an objective foundation for recognizing pathology. Our social definition of disease will remain contentious, however, because values vary, and because the label "disease" changes judgments about the moral status of people with various conditions, and their rights to medical and social resources.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)37-46
Number of pages10
JournalMedicine, health care, and philosophy
Volume4
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Disease
deduction
pathology
vulnerability
exclusion
inclusion
Pathology
resources
Values
Evolutionary

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Health(social science)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

On the difficulty of defining disease : a Darwinian perspective. / Nesse, Randolph.

In: Medicine, health care, and philosophy, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2001, p. 37-46.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4c5fd18558a0460ea372fc8119123e71,
title = "On the difficulty of defining disease: a Darwinian perspective.",
abstract = "Most attempts to craft a definition of disease seem to have tackled two tasks simultaneously: 1) trying to create a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria that correspond to medical usage of the word disease and 2) using this definition to understand the essence of what disease is. The first task has been somewhat accomplished, but cannot reach closure because the concept of {"}disease{"} is based on a prototype, not a logical category. The second task cannot be accomplished by deduction, but only by understanding how the body works and what each component is for, in evolutionary detail. An evolutionary view of the origins of the body and its vulnerabilities that result in disease provides an objective foundation for recognizing pathology. Our social definition of disease will remain contentious, however, because values vary, and because the label {"}disease{"} changes judgments about the moral status of people with various conditions, and their rights to medical and social resources.",
author = "Randolph Nesse",
year = "2001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "37--46",
journal = "Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy",
issn = "1386-7423",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the difficulty of defining disease

T2 - a Darwinian perspective.

AU - Nesse, Randolph

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Most attempts to craft a definition of disease seem to have tackled two tasks simultaneously: 1) trying to create a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria that correspond to medical usage of the word disease and 2) using this definition to understand the essence of what disease is. The first task has been somewhat accomplished, but cannot reach closure because the concept of "disease" is based on a prototype, not a logical category. The second task cannot be accomplished by deduction, but only by understanding how the body works and what each component is for, in evolutionary detail. An evolutionary view of the origins of the body and its vulnerabilities that result in disease provides an objective foundation for recognizing pathology. Our social definition of disease will remain contentious, however, because values vary, and because the label "disease" changes judgments about the moral status of people with various conditions, and their rights to medical and social resources.

AB - Most attempts to craft a definition of disease seem to have tackled two tasks simultaneously: 1) trying to create a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria that correspond to medical usage of the word disease and 2) using this definition to understand the essence of what disease is. The first task has been somewhat accomplished, but cannot reach closure because the concept of "disease" is based on a prototype, not a logical category. The second task cannot be accomplished by deduction, but only by understanding how the body works and what each component is for, in evolutionary detail. An evolutionary view of the origins of the body and its vulnerabilities that result in disease provides an objective foundation for recognizing pathology. Our social definition of disease will remain contentious, however, because values vary, and because the label "disease" changes judgments about the moral status of people with various conditions, and their rights to medical and social resources.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035234975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035234975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 37

EP - 46

JO - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

JF - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

SN - 1386-7423

IS - 1

ER -