Wakefield's Harmful Dysfunction Theory In Health And Health

Health and disease do not have a straightforward definition. It has been altered by many people in many points of history. For example, Boorse, Nordenfelt, and Wakefield are all philosophers that have defined what it means to be healthy. I am going to explain why Wakefield’s harmful dysfunction theory is the most plausible. First, I will briefly explain each theory. Next, I will determine whether Amanda Baggs would be considered healthy according to their definitions. After I examine Amanda Baggs, I will defend Wakefield’s harmful dysfunction theory and why it is the most plausible. Lastly, I will consider an objection to Wakefield’s theory as well as a reply to the objection. Boorse’s biostatisical theory is “a disease entity is concisely defined in the following way: it is the state of an individual which interferes with or even prevents the normal function of some organ or system of organs belonging to the bearer of the state” (Nordenfelt 1986: 281). The main point of this is that a person must not have any diseases and all of their parts are performing normally. They also must be working with typical efficiency. He looks at the biological, physical evidence for finding diseases and something that would be considered unhealthy. Boorse also believed that having at least one disease and having at least part failing to perform

Nordenfelt’s equilibrium theory says that health is being able to achieve one’s goals, so it is simply evaluative and not factual. A person with any disability that prevents these goals from being reached is considered unhealthy. Finally, he defined being diseased as having at least one organ which is involved in a state or process that reduces one’s ability to reach their vital goals (Kostko 2014). This explanation entails that disease is not as specific as Boorse believes, because any obstacle that prevents goals from being reached is now considered as