![]() ![]() Īlso worth noticing is the impact from the model of biological order and function that Darwin brought with the publication On the Origin of Species, postulating an ever-changing species which can be extrapolated to such subjects as immunology. ![]() Pasteur in the mid nineteenth century with his experimental work on the germ theory fits the ontological conception, whereas in the 20 century the French and German reductionist schools were prone to quantify physiological processes. Then physiology brought an experimentally-based medicine, as by the 1820s Broussais observed that the normal and pathological could be a matter of different intensity, in a quantifiable function with continuous values. The ontological was the endeavor to correlate anatomic pathology to clinical signs and symptoms. Modern medicine arises in the nineteenth century, and according to Canguilhem and Foulcaut point of view, it is a product of two revolutionary changes in the clinical orientation that organized the theory of medicine into ontological and physiological. From Aristotle’s view that motion is an actualization of a potentiality, health can be interpreted as the ability to accomplish goals, being healthier the one with more options or possibilities. Plato understood health in a hierarchical order, whereby health would mean the supremacy of the soul over the body, and thus the rational part would surpass the desirous one. Historically, Plato and Aristotle convey that medicine produces health. In the first place, the foundations for the theory of medicine must be considered. Philosophers of medicine regard normality either directly or indirectly along with the concept of health and disease. With the variety of subjects where the term normality is applied, and with different meanings, misunderstandings occur easily. As a science striving for its objectivity and as a humanity in search of understanding, the concepts that lay the foundation for medicine must be clearly defined. Medicine is said to be the most humane of sciences and the most scientific of humanities. ![]() Since there are tools to alter conditions the main focus should be in defining when to intervene. Diagnostics and therapeutics to achieve a given normality cause public instability worth attention, since this changing nature of health is unavoidable and normalizing parameters is not a solution to a balanced approach to life. Alarming interpretations proliferate to the detriment of a balanced relationship with health issues. The proliferation of medical information, which is at the general public disposal, and the technological possibilities should keep pace with conceptual and ethical literacy. From normality derives both health and disease, with implications from the patient self-perception and doctor-patient communication, to the goal of medical intervention, health insurance policies and public health measures. In clinical practice normality is at the basis of all comparisons. FormalParaĭSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This review appeals to the importance of redesigning of the concept of normality in medicine according to current times and stresses the importance of integrating concepts such as variability and autonomy. With Psychopathy the boundaries of biological advantage are questioned. Psychiatric diseases was discussed under the process of self-organization and non-suffering ideal. In the case of Anemia the BST was applied and the arbitrary boundaries but with social impact were exposed. They were Anemia, Psychiatric diseases and Psychopathy. If considered as a Biological Advantage, seems intuitive but abnormality should tend to disappear.Īfter, three examples were presented to discuss these models. As a Process it is comprehensible but is hard to frame for practical purposes. Normality as an Ideal is an useful tool but is naturally unrealistic. Health is similar and raises the question of setting the boundaries of pathology. The BST is the most established naturalistic approach, however normal variability can arguably constitute a problem. The different meanings for normality were analyzed throughout the literature and grouped according to their relevance in the academic community in models, namely the Biostatistical Theory (BST), Health, Ideal, Process and Biological advantage. With the increase in medical information and technical abilities it is urgent to have a clear concept of normality in medicine so that crucial discussions can be held with unequivocal terms. What is considered normal determines clinical practice in medicine and has implications at an individual level, doctor-patient relationship and health care policies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |