In this paper I investigate the web-rhetoric of companies offering home-based personal health monitoring to patients and elderly people. Two main rhetorical methods are found, namely a reference to practical benefits and a use of prestige words like “quality of life” and “independence”. I interpret the practical benefits in terms of instrumental values and the prestige words in terms of final values. I also reconstruct the arguments on the websites in terms of six different types of argument. Finally, I articulate (...) a general critique of the arguments, namely that the websites neglect the context of use of personal health monitoring technologies. Whether or not a technology is good depends on the use of the technology by a particular individual in a particular context. The technology is not good–or bad–in itself. I support this critique with a number of more specific arguments such as the risk for reduced personal contact. For some elderly people social contact with care providers is more valuable than the independent living made possible by remote monitoring, for others independence is more important. (shrink)

A family of instruments has been developed over the last twenty five years in order to measure the individual's subjective view of his health. The instruments vary in how broadly they define health. A wide range of critiques have challenged both the validity of these measures and their uses. This paper argues that disproportionate attention has been given to one form of health status measure—the so-called utility-based measures. The ensuing controversies have distracted from the substantial progress achieved in the application (...) of health status measures. This paper identifies the major areas of progress and argues that any serious critique needs to engage with this now sizeable body of applied knowledge. (shrink)

This article presents an archaeological inquiry into the early histories of Quality of Life measures, and takes this as an occasion to rethink the concept of the ‘medical model of disability’. Focusing on three instruments that set the ground for the emergence of QoL measures, namely, the Karnofsky Performance Scale, and the classification of functional capacity as a diagnostic criterion for heart diseases and as a supplementary aid to therapeutic criteria in rheumatoid arthritis – I discuss how medicine, throughout the (...) emergence of QoL, began to expand its gaze beyond the confines of the body to what that body does in daily life. Building upon Armstrong et al.’s notion of ‘distal symptoms’ and Wahlberg’s idea of ‘knowledge of living’, I propose the notion of disabilitization to encapsulate this expansion of the clinical gaze, through which medicine has come to articulate diseases and their treatments in new ways, and in so doing, has inadvertently created disability as a new kind of knowledge category in itself – a category that is defined not through its reduction to mere pathology, but through its dispersal into everyday life. I present this concept not as a periodization, but as a provocative discontinuity with the totalizing history assumed within the medical model of disability, and in so doing, ask what, in fact, holds ‘the medical model’ together, and whether there might be other ways of understanding medicine’s complex relationship to disability than what the concept of the medical model allows us to envisage. (shrink)