Phil. Medicine Syllabus 2015/16
1/4
Module Syllabus
Philosophy of Medicine
Semester
Number of Credits
Time and Location
Instructor
Contact
Office
Office hours
Fall, 2015-16
2
Mondays, 13.30-15.10, location tbc.
Emma Bullock
bullocke@ceu.edu
Zrinyi u. 14, R. 307
TBC
Description
The philosophy of medicine is a broad discipline, touching on themes within metaphysics,
epistemology and social philosophy. Part one of the module will guide students in unpacking
the concepts of ‘health’, ‘disease’ and ‘illness,’ as related to definitions of mental illness,
disability and human enhancement. In part two of the module students will test their
metaphysical and epistemological intuitions against a number of social, political and cultural
concerns about the nature and scope of medicine.
Course Goals
The aims of this module are twofold: first, to provide an understanding of the central
philosophical problems in the medical research and practice, and second, to develop the
philosophical skills required to critically analyse them.
Learning outcomes
By the end of the course, students will gain:
 an understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of some of the problems that
arise in the practice of medicine
 the ability to deploy the philosophical techniques and argumentative strategies that
can be used to discuss those problems
 the ability to explain the strengths and weaknesses of different positions in
philosophy of medicine
 the transferable skill of formulating and evaluating arguments for and against various
philosophical positions, both orally and in writing
Phil. Medicine Syllabus 2014/15
2/4
Weekly schedule and readings
Wk
Topic
CONCEPTS OF
HEALTH AND
DISEASE
Introduction to
Concepts of
Health and
Disease
Readings
2
Naturalism
3
Aristotelianism
4
Phenomenology
and Illness
5
6
Social
Constructivism
Mental Illness
Boorse (1977) Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of Science
Kingma (2007) What is it to be Healthy? Analysis
Cooper (2010) Aristotelian Accounts of Disease; what are they good for?
Philosophical Papers
Carel and Cooper (2013) Chapter 5: (Svenaeus) What is phenomenology of
medicine?
Carel (2011) Phenomenology and its application in medicine. Theoretical Medicine
and Bioethics
Carel and Cooper (2013) Chapter 2: (Kingma) Health and disease: social
constructivism as a combination of naturalism and normativism
Szasz (1960) The Myth of Mental Illness. American Psychologist
Carel and Cooper (2013) Chapter 4: (Aucouturier and Demazeux) The concept of
‘mental disorder’
7
Disability
8
Enhancement
9
ETHICS
Placebo
1
Ereshefsky (2009) Defining ‘Health’ and ‘Disease’. Studies in the history and
philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences
.
10
11
12
Therapeutic
Privilege
Pregnancy
Advance
Directives
Riddle (2013) Defining disability: metaphysical not political, Medicine Health care
and philosophy
Daniels (2000) Normal Functioning and the Treatment- Enhancement distinction.
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Buchanan (2009) Human Nature and Enhancement. Bioethics.
Groll (2011) What you don’t know can help you: The ethics of placebo treatment,
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Evans (2004) Nocebo – Beyond Good and Bad , in Placebo: Mind over Matter in
Modern Medicine
Bullock (forthcoming) Mandatory Disclosure and Medical Paternalism, Ethical
Theory and Moral Practice
Schedler (1991) Does society have the right to force pregnant drug addicts to abort
their foetuses? Social theory and Practice
Woollard and Kingma (2015) Article.
Buchanan (1988) Advance Directives and the Personal Identity Problem Philosophy
and Public Affairs
Resources
All compulsory reading material will be made available online.
Phil. Medicine Syllabus 2014/15
3/4
Suggested further reading
Barnes, Elizabeth (2009). Disability, minority, and difference. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26
(4):337-355.
Bostrom, Nick (2003). Human genetic enhancements: A transhumanist perspective. Journal of Value
Inquiry 37 (4):493-506
Carel, Havi (2007). Can I be ill and happy? Philosophia 35 (2):95-110.
Carel, Havi (2011). Phenomenology and its application in medicine. Theoretical Medicine and
Bioethics 32 (1):33-46.
Carel, Havi & Cooper, Rachel Valerie (eds.) (2013). Health, Illness and Disease: Philosophical Essays.
Acumen.
Foot, Philippa (2001). Natural Goodness. Oxford University Press.
Gergel, Tania L. (2012). Medicine and the individual: is phenomenology the answer? Journal of
Evaluation in Clinical Practice 18 (5):1102-1109.
Jackson, Jennifer C. (2001). Truth, Trust and Medicine. Routledge.
Khushf, George (2007). An agenda for future debate on concepts of health and disease. Medicine,
Health Care and Philosophy 10 (1):19-27.
Kukla, Rebecca and Wayne, Katherine, "Pregnancy, Birth, and Medicine", The Stanford Encyclopedia
of
Philosophy
(Spring
2011
Edition),
Edward
N.
Zalta
(ed.),
URL
=
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/ethics-pregnancy/>.
Megone, Christopher (1998). Aristotle's function argument and the concept of mental
illness. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 5 (3):187-201.
Megone, Christopher (2000). Mental Illness, Human Function, and Values. Philosophy, Psychiatry and
Psychology 7 (1):45-65.
Miller, F. G. & Brody, H. (2011). Understanding and Harnessing Placebo Effects: Clearing Away the
Underbrush. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (1):69-78.
Murphy “Concepts of Disease and Health", The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/healthdisease/>.
Neander, Karen (1991). Functions as selected effects: The conceptual analyst's defense. Philosophy of
Science 58 (2):168-184.
Nelson, James Lindemann & Nelson, JHilde Lindemann (eds.) (1999). Meaning and Medicine: A Reader
in the Philosophy of Health Care. Routledge.
Nordenfelt, Lennart (1998). On medicine and health enhancement - Towards a conceptual
framework. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 1 (1):5-12.
Ost, David E. (1984). The 'right' not to know. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (3):301-312.
Scott, Rosamund (2000). The Pregnant Woman and the Good Samaritan: Can a Woman have a Duty
to Undergo a Caesarean Section? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20 (3):407-436
Wakefield, Jerome C. (2006). What makes a mental disorder mental? Philosophy, Psychiatry, and
Psychology 13 (2):123-131.
Phil. Medicine Syllabus 2014/15
4/4
Requirements
Regular attendance, carefully completing the assigned readings before class, and active participation
in discussions will be expected from all students, whether registered for audit or taking the class for
credit.
In each session one student will be expected to lead the class. This will involve providing a hand-out
and delivering a short introduction to that week’s reading. This will not be graded but participation
will influence the student’s overall assessment (see below). Sessions will be assigned to students in
Week 1.
Assessment
For students taking the class for credit there will be an essay assignment of 2,000 words due at the
end of the semester. Students are encouraged to formulate their own essay questions based on
anything relevant to the topics covered in the module. I urge that students approach me with their
essay questions for advice and guidance before they start working on their essays (Emma Bullock).
Though the class grade is based on the final paper, all course requirements must be completed in a
satisfactory manner in order to earn a grade for the class. Should the final essay receive a borderline
mark, the student’s overall mark will be adjusted in light of the student’s in-class performance and
participation.
Grading criteria for final papers
Quantity:
Avoid going 10% over or under the required length. Writing clearly and succinctly within a word limit
is an important philosophical skill. Grades will thus be partly determined in light of the student’s ability
to stick closely to the word limit. The word count should include all references and footnotes (if any),
but exclude the bibliography.
Quality:
To earn a B+, the paper must clearly and concisely address the question and must be written in good
academic English. Insofar as these are relevant, the paper must demonstrate a solid understanding of
the arguments from readings in the course as well as in-class presentations and discussions. Important
principles and concepts should be clearly explained. The views of others should, where necessary, be
accurately, charitably, clearly and succinctly reconstructed, and properly cited with a bibliography. The
paper must show that you have analyzed and independently organized the material yourself in
response to the question, rather than simply following the organization of in-class presentations or
parts of the literature.
To earn an A-, the assignment must demonstrate all the above plus evidence of genuine progress as a
result of your own independent thinking, such as your own substantive evaluation and critique of the
validity and soundness of the arguments of others, or your own original positive argument. If there
are any problems with the exposition or arguments in the paper, these will be minor. Any obvious
objections to your argument will have been anticipated and answered.
Papers that earn an A will demonstrate all the above virtues to the extent that they are nearly flawless
in writing style, organization, exposition and soundness of arguments. While remaining entirely
relevant to the question, such a paper will be relatively ambitious in scope and will demonstrate an
exceptional degree of understanding and of the topic.