on April 30th, 2015 No Comments
How do we know what is pathological, versus what is normal? It seems obvious until you start thinking philosophically, which was the goal of a panel hosted last week by the Science and Justice Working Group at University of California, Santa Cruz. The event was titled “‘Fixing’ the Pathological Body,” a pun on how fixing can mean both repairing and immobilizing.
An anthropologist, a philosopher, and a geneticist discussed how simple, everyday practices like using particular words or certain tests define a line between pathology and normalcy. That line has a huge impact on our experience as humans.
Matthew Wolfmeyer, PhD, professor of anthropology at UCSC, used the term “multibiologism” to indicate that pathology can be seen as a form of human variation. There are three kinds of bodies, he says: those that need no intervention of social, legal, or medical support to enable a livable life, those that do need such intervention (such as a quadriplegic or someone with severe Alzheimer’s), and those that could have such intervention (anyone from hyperactive kids or insomniacs to those with PTSD or arthritis). American society currently divides this spectrum such that the “no intervention” category is becoming empty and the “could have intervention” category is growing by leaps and bounds. Despite what he calls our “cure ideology” from our Judeo-Christian heritage, the pathologies we recognize are increasingly incurable, whether it be gluten sensitivity or chronic cancer, and must be treated with ongoing therapies.
Kelly Ormond, MS, professor of genetics at Stanford, provides genetic counseling and helps people think about these issues every day. She helps expectant parents face the grueling task of deciding what it means to have a baby who might be labeled disabled, pathological, or normal — how would such a child fit into their life, and are they able and willing to accommodate that? Do they even want the information that genetic tests can offer? When counseling parents, Ormond tries to emphasize the lived experience of a condition instead of its medical aspects. Medical information tends to categorize and stir up preconceived notions, but in everyday life the significance of such designations is more fluid, she said.
Janette Dinishak, PhD, professor of philosophy at UCSC, studies autism. She wants to reframe society’s understanding of people with autism such that those without autism are the ones who are limited.