Philosophical discussions of health and disease have traditionally been dominated by a debate between normativists, who hold that health is an inescapably value-laded concept and naturalists, such as Christopher Boorse, who believe that it is possible to derive a purely descriptive or theoretical definition of health based upon biological function. In this paper I defend a distinctive view which traces its origins in Aristotle's naturalistic ethics. An Arisotelian would agree with Boorse that health and disease are ubiquitous features of the (...) natural world and thus not mere projections of human interests and values. She would differ from him in rejecting the idea that value is a non-natural quality. I conclude my discussion with some comments of the normative character of living systems. (shrink)

Those who write about pain management have focused almost entirely on delivery issues, paying essentially no attention to the federal regulatory challenges that affect the development of pain relief technologies — namely, pharmaceuticals and medical devices indicated for analgesic uses. The academic literature is strangely devoid of any sophisticated discussion of the difficulties that attend, first, the product approval decisions of the Food and Drug Administration and, second, the scheduling decisions made by the Drug Enforcement Administration. If a “bottleneck” develops (...) upstream, it could have serious repercussions downstream — without pain relief technologies, the issues of access that have preoccupied previous commentators would have little practical consequence.The modern pharmaceutical industry traces its origins back more than a century, around the time that the German company Bayer first synthesized aspirin and began marketing it as an analgesic. (shrink)

This paper examines the most influential naturalist theory of health, Christopher Boorse’s ‘biostatistical theory’ . I argue that the BST is an unsuitable candidate for the rôle that Boorse has cast it to play, namely, to underpin medicine with a theoretical, value-free science of health and disease. Following the literature, I distinguish between “real” changes and “mere Cambridge changes” in terms of the difference between an individual’s intrinsic and relational properties and argue that the framework of the BST essentially implies (...) a Cambridge-change criterion. The examination reveals that this implicit criterion commits the BST to the troubling view that an individual could go from being diseased to healthy, or vice versa, without any physiological change in that individual. Two problems follow: the current framework of the BST is ill-equipped to formally embrace Cambridge changes and it is theoretically dubious. The arguments advanced here are not limited to the BST; I suggest they extend to any naturalist claim to underpin medical practice with a value-free theory of health and disease defined in terms of an evolutionary view of biological fitness. (shrink)