The Disease Loophole: Index Terms and Their Role in Disease Misclassification.

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Alex N Roberts
{"title":"The Disease Loophole: Index Terms and Their Role in Disease Misclassification.","authors":"Alex N Roberts","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhae006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The definitions of disease proffered by philosophers and medical actors typically require that a state of ill health be linked to some known bodily dysfunction before it is classified as a disease. I argue that such definitions of disease are not fully implementable in current medical discourse and practice. Adhering to the definitions would require that medical actors keep close track of the current state of knowledge on the causes and mechanisms of particular illnesses. Yet, unaddressed problems in medical terminology can make this difficult to do. I show that unrecognized misuse of \"heterogeneous,\" \"biomarker,\" and other important health terms-which I call index terms-can misrepresent the current empirical evidence on illness pathophysiology, such that unvalidated illness constructs become mistaken for diseases. Thus, implementing common definitions of disease would require closing this \"loophole\" in medical discourse. I offer a simple rule that, if followed, could help do just that.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhae006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The definitions of disease proffered by philosophers and medical actors typically require that a state of ill health be linked to some known bodily dysfunction before it is classified as a disease. I argue that such definitions of disease are not fully implementable in current medical discourse and practice. Adhering to the definitions would require that medical actors keep close track of the current state of knowledge on the causes and mechanisms of particular illnesses. Yet, unaddressed problems in medical terminology can make this difficult to do. I show that unrecognized misuse of "heterogeneous," "biomarker," and other important health terms-which I call index terms-can misrepresent the current empirical evidence on illness pathophysiology, such that unvalidated illness constructs become mistaken for diseases. Thus, implementing common definitions of disease would require closing this "loophole" in medical discourse. I offer a simple rule that, if followed, could help do just that.

疾病漏洞:索引术语及其在疾病分类错误中的作用。
哲学家和医务工作者提出的疾病定义通常要求,在将一种不健康的状态归类为疾病之前,必须将其与某些已知的身体机能障碍联系起来。我认为,这样的疾病定义在当前的医学讨论和实践中并不能完全实现。要遵守这些定义,医疗工作者就必须密切关注当前关于特定疾病的病因和机制的知识状况。然而,医学术语中尚未解决的问题可能会导致难以做到这一点。我的研究表明,"异质性"、"生物标志物 "和其他重要健康术语(我称之为索引术语)的误用可能会歪曲当前关于疾病病理生理学的经验证据,从而使未经验证的疾病概念被误认为是疾病。因此,要实施疾病的通用定义,就必须堵住医学话语中的这个 "漏洞"。我提出一个简单的规则,如果得到遵守,就能帮助做到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信