Does disease incite a stronger moral appeal than health?
Disease
Duty
Health
Imperative
Moral appeal
Suffering
Wellbeing
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 11 2023
06 11 2023
Historique:
received:
05
07
2023
accepted:
11
10
2023
medline:
7
11
2023
pubmed:
6
11
2023
entrez:
5
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Is disease demotion more important than health promotion? The question is crucial for the ethos of medicine and for priority setting in healthcare. When things get tough, where should our attention and resources go: to health or disease? This study investigates two general perspectives on health and disease to address whether there is a stronger moral appeal from people's disease than from their health. While naturalist conceptions of health and disease are mute on moral appeal, normativist conceptions give diverse answers. Classical utilitarianism provides a symmetrical view of health and disease, according to which we have an equally strong moral appeal to further health as we have to reduce disease. Other normativist positions argue that there is an asymmetry between health and disease providing substantial support for a stronger moral appeal from disease than from health. This has a wide range of radical implications, especially within priority setting. In particular, treatment, palliation, and prevention of disease should have priority to the promotion and enhancement of health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37926829
doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-03110-3
pii: 10.1186/s12916-023-03110-3
pmc: PMC10626685
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
419Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Med Health Care Philos. 2003;6(1):59-66
pubmed: 12710565
Nurs Ethics. 2008 Jan;15(1):62-72
pubmed: 18096582
J Med Ethics. 1992 Jun;18(2):94-8
pubmed: 1619629
Eur J Epidemiol. 2023 Aug;38(8):913-916
pubmed: 37335385
J Med Philos. 2002 Dec;27(6):651-73
pubmed: 12607162
J Med Philos. 2017 Aug 1;42(4):350-366
pubmed: 28444218
Patient Educ Couns. 2022 May;105(5):1201-1208
pubmed: 34625319
J Med Philos. 2018 Jul 9;43(4):421-438
pubmed: 29986066
J Med Philos. 2014 Dec;39(6):683-724
pubmed: 25398760
J Med Philos. 2014 Dec;39(6):648-82
pubmed: 25336733
Analysis. 2007 Apr;67(294):128-133
pubmed: 18270546
Med Health Care Philos. 2005;8(3):335-41
pubmed: 16283496
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jun;56(12):2407-19
pubmed: 12742604
Hastings Cent Rep. 1977 Apr;7(2):31-9
pubmed: 863703
Med Health Care Philos. 1998;1(1):31-9
pubmed: 11081280
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 3;9(4):e027524
pubmed: 30948616
Theor Med Bioeth. 2005;26(5):355-77
pubmed: 16245004
Theor Med. 1990 Sep;11(3):227-41
pubmed: 2247858
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Mar;20(3):53-62
pubmed: 32105204
J Community Health Nurs. 2001 Winter;18(4):213-22
pubmed: 11775555
Health Care Anal. 2001;9(1):1-13
pubmed: 11372571
Eur J Intern Med. 2023 Nov;117:3-7
pubmed: 37735001
Theor Med Bioeth. 2014 Dec;35(6):407-20
pubmed: 25398688
Med Health Care Philos. 2021 Jun;24(2):291-301
pubmed: 33398488
Med Health Care Philos. 2007 Mar;10(1):19-27; discussion 29-32
pubmed: 16960649
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1986 Dec;40(4):281-4
pubmed: 3655618
J Med Ethics. 2001 Apr;27(2):80-5
pubmed: 11314163