[The function of a general concept of disease from an historical perspective]

This article questions why medicine fails to provide a general concept of disease for use by doctors, patients and society because the lack of such a unified concept inhibits any definitive distinction between "deviant" and "disease". By providing an historical overview of the particularities related to this question the authors demonstrate that the ever-changing concepts of disease were not driven by the process through which medicine became a science. In contrast to naturalistic concepts of disease, anthropological, sociocultural and psychosomatic concepts are grounded in an understanding of disease that cannot be determined, described and categorized by pathology alone. As a consequence, disease can only be determined or defined in relation to social and scientific frames of reference, as illustrated by an example from the Berlin Nervenklinik (psychiatric clinic) in the early twentieth century. The ways in which the definition of a disease concept represents a normative interpretation can be observed. The authors of this paper argue for the acceptance of this normative definition as a matter of societal agreement. Consequently, transparency is required in the shaping of general disease concepts.