Rudnick A
Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Med Philos. 2000 Oct;25(5):569-80. doi: 10.1076/0360-5310(200010)25:5;1-W;FT569.
This study examines the ends of medical intervention and argues that mainstream contemporary medicine assumes that appropriate ends may be discovered (i.e., naturalism), rather than created or decided upon (i.e., conventionalism). The essay then applies these considerations to the problem of the demarcation of the normal from the pathological. I argue that the common formulations of this dispute commit a fallacy, as they characterize the "normal" as a state of the organism and not as an ongoing process within it. Such a process may be characterized as self-creation and self-repair. Such considerations support the conclusion that normality may be regarded as a regulative idea, rather than as an end-state, and as part of the ends of medical intervention, depending upon choice and context.
本研究考察了医学干预的目的，并认为当代主流医学假定适当的目的可以被发现（即自然主义），而不是被创造或决定（即约定主义）。然后，本文将这些思考应用于正常与病理的区分问题。我认为，这场争论的常见表述犯了一个谬误，因为它们将“正常”描述为有机体的一种状态，而不是其内部的一个持续过程。这样一个过程可以被描述为自我创造和自我修复。这些思考支持了这样一个结论，即正常可以被视为一种调节性理念，而不是一种终态，并且作为医学干预目的的一部分，这取决于选择和背景。
