Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Efforts to improve traits that are at no diagnosable risk of deterioration are enhancements and thus medically suspect

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The treatment-enhancement distinction presupposes a normative baseline of 'normal function' that is itself a contested social and historical construction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'normal function' lacks objective grounding, then 'no diagnosable risk of deterioration' cannot reliably demarcate medical from non-medical interventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Boorse's biostatistical theory, the most rigorous attempt to naturalize this baseline, has been shown by Daniels and others to smuggle in covert normative judgments about species-typical functioning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Medicine's legitimate scope is defined by its capacity to promote human welfare and prevent suffering, not solely by the presence of diagnosable pathology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Buchanan, Brock, Daniels, and Wikler argue in 'From Chance to Choice' that confining medicine to disease-treatment arbitrarily privileges natural deficits over equally harmful socially-caused disadvantages.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If medical suspicion tracks welfare-relevance rather than diagnostic categories, interventions improving traits without pathology can fall within legitimate medical practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Medical necessity requires the identification of a malady in the patient
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Traits at no diagnosable risk of deterioration involve no malady
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Interventions lacking medical necessity are properly classified as enhancements
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.