Concepts of disease: Dysfunction, responsibility and sin

Editors: Therese Feiler, Joshua Hordern, Robin Gill

Contributors: Katherine Southwood, Therese Feiler, Joshua Hordern, Jonathan Herring, Graham Collins

people pointing

Our understanding of disease defines the practical scope for medical interventions as well as the horizons of ultimate hope. What is the meaning of disease? Whose fault is it, and who is to blame? In what way can disease possibly be overcome? A growing movement towards ‘responsibilisation’, the idea that patients are responsible for their diseases or at least their treatment, may stand in some tension with the welfarist view that ill-health should be regarded as a matter of bad luck, at least from a procedural perspective.

The connection between disease and sin or fault also raises the broader question of the nature and extent of compassion for those suffering. Patients, especially those thought to be ‘irresponsible’ in some way, may come to be regarded as less deserving of compassion — or of treatment altogether. So how far does it make sense to talk about ‘moral failure’ in connection with disease, what are the limits and dangers of doing so?

The five contributions in this journal issue emerge from a January 2017 conference which explored how different religious traditions, academic disciplines, and medical practitioners conceptualise disease and its connection to personal responsibility. It was funded by the Sir Halley Stewart Trust, to whom we hereby record our thanks. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Sir Halley Stewart Trust.

Click here to download Joshua Horden's article Compassion and Responsibility for Disease: Trump, tragedy and mercy.