Three Major Theories Of Disease

The three most significant theories of disease are naturalist, normativist, and hybrid theorists. Each of these theories of disease has major differences which differentiate them from one another. Ultimately, the hybrid approach with the incorporation of some normative and naturalist views proves to be the most superior theory of disease of the bunch. Naturalist theories of disease believe that all beings and events in the universe are natural and denies the existence of any supernatural realities. In other words, disease is purely biological/statistical, it refers to deviation from normal functioning. A naturalist would say that dysfunction is both necessary and sufficient for disease. They would also say that the harm factor is both necessary
Illnesses are particulars, and diseases are universals. An example of a disease which is not an illness is warts. As alternative accounts to disease, Boorse discusses health as the desirable; where there are undesirable below average conditions, statistical normality; red hair and O-type blood are abnormal but are not diseases while there also are diseases which are not statistically abnormal, disability; pregnancy is used as a counterexample for this as pregnancy can be disabling, it can also be said that many minor diseases are not disabling, pain/suffering/discomfort, as well as many other topics. With discomfort, pain, and suffering, it can’t be used to define disease. A mother in labor is likely to be in pain and discomfort yet it is not unhealthy. While Boorse’s naturalist theories bring up valid points, there are also many problems with them. For example, Boorse has such a broad understanding of health that it defines even wounds, fractures, and poisonings as diseases. By Boorse’s approach to health and disease, it would be impossible for there to be a universal genetic disease. Boorse’s choice of goals of survival and reproduction are “the goals towards which human organisms, qua biological entities, strive.” Thus, inviting the opposing views that the human mind has biological functions and they are not limited to reproduction and
The theory stresses the importance of distinguishing disorders from responses to stressful environments and other conflicts, control and stigmatization, and professional demarcations. The aspect of normativist accounts of ‘if it doesn’t bother us it’s not a disease’ seems so wrong in my mind. Just because someone doesn’t have symptoms of the disease doesn’t mean it’s not a disease. Like a carrier - Typhoid Mary, she didn’t show any symptoms of her disease and yet she certainly had it. As for Boorse and the naturalist theories of disease, I must oppose this and say that malfunction is not necessary for pathology. The appendix no longer has a function for our body today, and yet it can be diseased. Boorse’s Biostatistical Theory of Disease also seems to have problems such as universal disease and reference class. The reference class being a natural class of organisms of uniform functional design. As for species as reference classes, what about ancestor-less organisms or hybrids? How about lab creations? It’s quite clear here that the hybrid theory as presented by Wakefield is the superior theory of disease in this