PubMed · 16425877
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Bernard Devauchelle. 2005. [Does esthetic surgery exist?].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16425877/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Unprotected sex among gay/bisexual men throughout the AIDS epidemic has usually been described as unintentional due to a relapse from safer sex behavior. The term "barebacking" emerged among HIV-positive men explicitly seeking unprotected sex with seroconcordant partners, but has come into use in the larger gay community to simply mean condomless sex. Some men have also taken on the identity as a "barebacker." The present study assessed prevalence and predictors of bareback identity in a sample 687 gay/bisexual men attending community events. Barebackers reported significantly more use of crystal methamphetamine and higher peer norms for unprotected sex; HIV-negative barebackers were higher in sexual compulsivity while HIV-positive barebackers were higher in romantic obsession as well as drug/alcohol influenced sexual expectancies. HIV prevention efforts targeting barebackers and barebacking must be carefully developed if programs and campaigns are to be effective given the open debates about this phenomenon in the gay community.
Contemporary philosophy of health has been quite focused on the problem of determining the nature of the concepts of health, illness and disease from a scientific point of view. Some theorists claim and argue that these concepts are value-free and descriptive in the same sense as the concepts of atom, metal and rain are value-free and descriptive. To say that a person has a certain disease or that he or she is unhealthy is thus to objectively describe this person. On the other hand it certainly does not preclude an additional evaluation of the state of affairs as undesirable or bad. The basic scientific description and the evaluation are, however, two independent matters, according to this kind of theory. Other philosophers claim that the concept of health, together with the other medical concepts, is essentially value-laden. To establish that a person is healthy does not just entail some objective inspection and measurement. It presupposes also an evaluation of the general state of the person. A statement that he or she is healthy does not merely imply certain scientific facts regarding the person's body or mind but implies also a (positive) evaluation of the person's bodily and mental state. My task in this paper will be, first, to present the two principal rival types of theories and present what I take to be the main kind of reasoning by which we could assess these theories, and second, to present a deeper characterization of the principal rival theories of health and illness.
The traditional contrast between naturalist and normativist disease concepts fails to capture the most salient features of the health concepts debate. By using health concepts as a window on background notions of medical science and ethics, I show how Christopher Boorse (an influential naturalist) and Lennart Nordenfelt (an influential normativist) actually share deep assumptions about the character of medicine. Their disease concepts attempt, in different ways, to shore up the same medical model. For both, health concepts function like demarcation criteria in the philosophy of science: they mark off the jurisdiction of medical science, and protect it from an inappropriate intrusion of socioeconomic factors, which threaten the integrity of modern medicine. These views are challenged by new developments in healthcare such as managed care and total quality review. To frame the health concepts debate in a way that better captures the issues integral to these new developments, I advance a new way of reading the distinction between weak and strong normativists. Strong normativists are skeptical of the demarcation project, think facts and values cannot be disentangled, and hold that socioeconomic conditions unavoidably influence how pathology is understood. The new health concepts debate should be framed as one between weak and strong normativists, and it concerns how we should respond to the current developments in health care.