↓ Skip to main content

Health, homeostasis, and the situation-specificity of normality

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Health, homeostasis, and the situation-specificity of normality
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11017-015-9320-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antoine C. Dussault, Anne-Marie Gagné-Julien

Abstract

Christopher Boorse's Biostatistical Theory of Health has been the main contender among naturalistic accounts of health for the last 40 years. Yet, a recent criticism of this theory, presented by Elselijn Kingma, identifies a dilemma resulting from the BST's conceptual linking of health and statistical typicality. Kingma argues that the BST either cannot accommodate the situation-specificity of many normal functions (e.g., digestion) or cannot account for many situation-specific diseases (e.g., mountain sickness). In this article, we expand upon with Daniel Hausman's response to Kingma's dilemma. We propose that recalling Boorse's specification that health is an intrinsic property of its bearers and explicating this intrinsic property in relation to the concept of homeostasis can illuminate how proponents of naturalistic accounts of health should deal with the situation-specificity of normal functions. We argue that beyond what Boorse and Hausman have delineated, the situation-specificity of normal function cannot be fully captured in a simple dichotomy between normal and abnormal environment or between relevant and irrelevant situations. By bringing homeostasis to the fore of the analysis of health, we set out a richer picture of what the various situations that affect living organisms' functional performance can be. Accordingly, we provide a broader classification of these various situations which, we contend, better accounts for the main intuitions that philosophers of medicine have sought to accommodate than previous naturalistic theories of health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 29%
Professor 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 3 18%
Psychology 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 6 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2015.
All research outputs
#20,259,845
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#267
of 292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,671
of 351,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 292 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.