Abstract
There is a common complaint that there are so many different concepts of health and so many definitions of health that the enterprise of characterising health becomes completely hopeless. The question can then be asked: have I just contributed to the prevalent confusion by adding a further concept of health?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Here I have only given an abstract presentation of such justifications. In every case we must then provide criteria for simplicity, efficiency and fruitfulness. In [71], pp.4-6, I have proposed a list of criteria for the fruitfulness of a scientific theory of health.
For a more elaborate discussion of these concepts, see [71], pp. 108-109. Observe that I am inclined to view impairments as similar to injuries in the mentioned respects. Perhaps impairments can be seen as a subspecies of injuries, viz. such injuries as are caused by disease. See the conceptualisation suggested in chapter 12.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nordenfelt, L. (2000). On the Multiplicity of Health Concepts. In: Action, Ability and Health. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9361-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9361-8_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5412-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9361-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive