On illness, disease, and priority: a framework for more fruitful debates

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Medicine
• Conceptual Analysis
• Medical Ethics

Background:

• The naturalism vs. normativism debate hinges on the distinction between 'disease' and 'illness'.
• Current discourse exhibits disagreement on prioritizing 'disease' or 'illness' concepts.
• Implicit interpretive differences underlie the naturalism/normativism disagreement.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze and disambiguate the differing interpretations of 'disease' and 'illness' within naturalism and normativism.
• To develop a theoretically neutral distinction between 'disease' and 'illness'.
• To introduce a concept of 'heuristic priority' for a common ground in conceptual debates.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis of philosophical arguments regarding disease and illness.
• Disambiguation of terms and concepts within the naturalism/normativism debate.
• Proposal of a new conceptual framework and terminology.

Main Results:

• Identified that naturalists view 'disease'/'illness' as descriptive/prescriptive, while normativists see them as cause/effect.
• Demonstrated how differing interpretations of 'priority' lead to debate conflation.
• Developed a theoretically neutral distinction and introduced 'heuristic priority'.

Conclusions:

• The proposed framework and shared terminology can resolve common confusions in disease-concept debates.
• A neutral approach to distinguishing 'disease' and 'illness' enhances philosophical clarity.
• The concept of heuristic priority offers a path toward more fruitful interdisciplinary discussions.