Value Judgement Vs Medical Judgement

Within medical philosophy, there is debate over whether the notion of disease involves a value judgement or if it is strictly based on medical judgement. On one side, normativsts believe that all judgements about health and disease require a value judgement. This means that we think of unhealthy conditions as “bad” and healthy conditions as “good”. In addition, normativism is the belief that values of the patient and society are considered when determining if the patient has a disease. Normativists believe that it is not possible to define health without using evaluative terms. On the other hand, objectivists believe that a condition is a disease if it is the result of some sort of biological dysfunction. Objectivists such as Christopher Boorse define disease and illness as separate entities. He believes that
Under these definitions, all illnesses are diseases, but not all diseases are illnesses. In my opinion, classifying diseases involves both a value judgment and a medical judgement. In this essay, I will discuss both sides of the argument, potential problems with both sides, and the hybrid theory that attempts to resolve these problems within objectivism and normativism.
Within the normativist belief there are two different sides. The strong normativists believe that judgements about disease are purely value judgements and no not have any biological element. They believe that an unhealthy condition expresses societal disapproval of that condition. Weak normativists, however, believe there is both a normative element and a descriptive element. They believe that conditions are labeled as diseases if they are undesirable, but they also have a biological element to them. One of the main arguments of normativism is homosexuality. Up until the 1970s, homosexuality was considered a disease. Currently, it would be extremely abnormal for someone to think about homosexuality as a disease.