Malady Paper

1. One problem the article recognizes with historical attempts to define disease is making the appropriate distinction between pure inability and disability. If we define disability as a lack of ability without bearing in mind normal human capacity and external variables, it is possible to mislabel certain actions as abnormal and therefore classify them as diseased. The article calls into question whether an individual who is unable to walk can definitively be labeled as such. While historical definitions would inherently claim yes, inability conclusively defines disability, the authors propose we must consider what is normal in order to distinguish disability from inability. In doing so, we can make a more contextual conclusion by bringing to light certain circumstances of inability that do not warrant a diagnosis of abnormality. For example, if the individual is an infant, than his/her lack of maturation is labeled as an inability rather than a disability. However, if the individual is at his/her prime age and cannot perform a task that is feasibly performed by the norm, then they would be classified as disabled. Therefore, injuries that affect function and cause inability suggest disability and license a diagnosis of disease.
The author’s interpretation allows for a more accurate and detailed definition of disability where previously, the majority of individuals in some form could be identified as disabled. The various levels of affliction produce a clearer outline that can be placed on a standard curve. The distribution classifies the extreme lower end of the curve as disabled and takes into account the normal aging process. It is no surprise that individuals in their eighties and nineties are less capable of certain activities than someone in their forties, and even less so than someone in their twenties. But does that make older individuals diseased? What makes their proposal superior is that the distribution avoids at a larger level misdiagnosis stemming