Medical Disorder Is Not a Black Box Essentialist Concept

Harriet Fagerberg
{"title":"Medical Disorder Is Not a Black Box Essentialist Concept","authors":"Harriet Fagerberg","doi":"10.5195/pom.2023.165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Defining Mental Disorder: Jerome Wakefield and His Critics, edited by Denis Forest and Luc Faucher, is essential reading for students and researchers in philosophy of medicine whose work is informed by that of Jerome Wakefield, or the disease debate in general. If you are anything like me, this book will open the door to a new depth of understanding of the harmful dysfunction analysis (HDA) and its methodical underpinnings, and an enriched appreciation of what is at stake in defining medical disorder. To those confident that they understand Wakefield’s view and the surrounding debate, thinking perhaps that they do not need a refresher, I would say: perhaps you do not understand it as well as you think. Defining Mental Disorder provides much more than an overview of previously well-trodden ground. The chapters themselves, and Wakefield’s own detailed responses, help to elucidate a number of methodological nuances and peculiarities that have rarely been covered in such depth before. I was startled to learn how philosophically complex Wakefield’s position actually is, and how shallow my own understanding of it has been. It emerges as a far more nuanced and sophisticated account than I had given it credit for, and one that deserves serious reevaluation.","PeriodicalId":82846,"journal":{"name":"Studies in philosophy of medicine","volume":"35 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in philosophy of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2023.165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Defining Mental Disorder: Jerome Wakefield and His Critics, edited by Denis Forest and Luc Faucher, is essential reading for students and researchers in philosophy of medicine whose work is informed by that of Jerome Wakefield, or the disease debate in general. If you are anything like me, this book will open the door to a new depth of understanding of the harmful dysfunction analysis (HDA) and its methodical underpinnings, and an enriched appreciation of what is at stake in defining medical disorder. To those confident that they understand Wakefield’s view and the surrounding debate, thinking perhaps that they do not need a refresher, I would say: perhaps you do not understand it as well as you think. Defining Mental Disorder provides much more than an overview of previously well-trodden ground. The chapters themselves, and Wakefield’s own detailed responses, help to elucidate a number of methodological nuances and peculiarities that have rarely been covered in such depth before. I was startled to learn how philosophically complex Wakefield’s position actually is, and how shallow my own understanding of it has been. It emerges as a far more nuanced and sophisticated account than I had given it credit for, and one that deserves serious reevaluation.
医学失调不是黑盒子本质主义概念
介绍定义精神障碍:杰罗姆·韦克菲尔德和他的批评者,由丹尼斯森林和编辑Luc Faucher至关重要阅读医学哲学的学生和研究人员的工作由杰罗姆·韦克菲尔德的通知,或疾病的争论。如果你像我一样,这本书将为你打开一扇门,让你对有害功能障碍分析(HDA)及其系统的基础有一个新的深入理解,并丰富你对定义医学障碍的利害关系的认识。对于那些相信自己理解了韦克菲尔德的观点和周围的争论,认为自己可能不需要复习的人,我想说:也许你并没有像你想象的那样理解它。定义精神障碍所提供的远不止是对先前已被熟知的领域的概述。这些章节本身,以及Wakefield自己的详细回答,有助于阐明以前很少被如此深入地涵盖的许多方法论上的细微差别和特点。我惊讶地发现,韦克菲尔德的立场在哲学上是多么复杂,而我自己对它的理解是多么浅薄。这本书的描述比我所认为的要细致和复杂得多,值得认真地重新评估。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书