Philosophy of Disease

Benjamin Smart was awarded his PhD by the University of Nottingham, UK, in 2012, before lecturing for two years at the University of Birmingham, UK. He joined the University of Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2014 as a Senior Research Associate, where he now works as a Senior Lecturer.

• AcknowledgementsList of abbreviationsIntroduction1. The Concept of Disease in Clinical MedicineThe maximally value laden conception – Rachel Cooper on diseaseThe pure statistical conceptionThe frequency and negative consequences approach, and the line-drawing problemThe etiological account of function, and disease as harmful dysfunctionDisease as harmful function – 'drawing the line' on the etiological account of disease2. What is a Pathological Condition?Boorse's naturalismObjections to Boorse's naturalismThe frequency and negative consequences approach revisitedThe etiological theory of pathological condition3. Concepts of Causation in the Philosophy of DiseaseCausation as counterfactual dependenceClinical medicine and the dispositional account of causationThe classification of diseases, and the sufficient-cause model of causation4. Causal Inference in Public HealthHill's criteria and the evidence-based medicine evidence hierarchyThe epidemiologist's potential outcomes approachHernan and Taubman's potential outcomes approachDiffusing Broadbent – a Popperian take on the potential outcomes approachThe importance of nonmanipulable causes5. Concluding Remarks

Alexander Bird, Bristol University Intellectual quality. Pretty high. Smart is clearly a good philosopher and the sample chapter presented solid and novel arguments. Overall, I think this could be an intellectually significant contribution to the literature. Structure and intended content. This looks very promising. Really this is a book about the metaphysics of disease. And Smart does a good job of articulating a view and plan of how this should be seen. Maybe there is one missing topics: are diseases natural kinds? Still, that may be not essential and arguably it might not fit into the book's intended structure in a neat way (though it might fit well into the sample chapter). Style. The style is a bit on the 'worthy' side. It certainly isn't as dully academic and longwinded as many academic books are - - indeed the writing is pretty condensed rather than longwinded. It is generally a clear and straightforward read. On the other hand, it isn't very engaging as it stands. Maybe this is a result of Smart being a very young philosopher - - a more relaxed, engaging style often comes with greater confidence and experience. Although the total book length is intended to be less than 50,000, I would advise a bit more expansive writing - - more explanation, more illustrative examples (and taking time to explain some of the medical examples which may seem a bit esoteric to philosophers), and more generally trying to relax the style a bit while maintaining clarity and focus. Target audience and market. As Smart says, this is aimed at an academic audience. And an academic audience of philosophers at that. I think that academic medics will get left behind pretty quickly. In any case the latter are not really likely to be interested in the details of different philosophical theories of causation. Smart doesn't claim that they are, so that's not a problem - - just something for you to be aware of. Is there a big market of philosophers of medicine? Not really. Philosophy of medicine is still fairly small. But it is growing, fairly rapidly too, in the UK, US, and continental Europe. I would hesitate to quantify this. It might well find its way onto reading lists, but I'm not sure how many sales that would generate. Title. One of those 'three abstract concept' titles so loved by philosophers, since Ayer's "Language Truth, and Logic". At least there is an 'On' as well. I think that something more imaginative could be better. My first thought is: "What is disease?" with subtitle: "The metaphysics of medicine" or something like that. (I'm not saying that this is especially imaginative.) The phrase "philosophy of epidemiology" is slightly misleading, since many might expect that to include a substantial epistemological element: how do we infer the presence or cause of disease? Overall. I don't think you've got a smash hit on your hands. On the other hand, it certainly has potential. If you do go with this, it might be best to give Smart some time to work on the project. I get the feeling that this book will mature with age and that it might get better the more that Smart works on it and the more experience he gets.