Disease is ubiquitous. Disease afflicts humans. It afflicts animals. It afflicts plants. People refer to disease in their everyday conversation. Newspapers comment upon it. Parliaments enact legislation regarding it. Novelists write about it. Artists depict it. Physicians, veterinary surgeons and agriculturalists seek to combat it. Insurance companies offer reimbursement against it. Anthropologists study it. Philosophers debate its nature, and dictionaries define it. Disease looms large in human consciousness. One might presume that, since disease is so important in daily life, human beings would know exactly what they mean by it. Most people seem to believe instinctively that they understand the nature of disease, and that their ideas about it coincide with other people�s ideas. The definition of disease therefore arouses little controversy in everyday conversation. People use the word disease as readily as they use the words spade, or table or nose. They suggest, when they joke that somebody calls a spade a spade, that the nature of the implement used to dig the garden is so obvious that it requires no further definition. Similarly with a table or a nose. They might debate how many legs a table must have, but�regardless of the answer�rarely deny that it is a table; whilst every human must surely know what a nose is. This high level of agreement about so many commonly used terms perhaps creates an assumption that the meaning of disease is equally obvious and requires no further analysis. Is this, however, really the case? Disease is a somewhat less concrete phenomenon than is a spade or a table or a nose. Its existence, most would agree, is incontrovertible, but its nature is less clear. It is something that seems to befall people and animals and plants. It rarely serves any useful purpose. It often carries dire implications. It is something that most of us would prefer not to have, but rarely succeed in avoiding. It commonly comes unannounced and at inconvenient times. It usually causes distress, but not always. It can have a fatal outcome. Some people appear more prone to it that others. It sometimes sweeps through whole populations producing social devastation, but its manifestations vary. Some diseases affect a person�s whole body, others merely a part of the body; some affect some parts of the body, others other parts. Some diseases only affect humans, whereas others affect both humans and animals. Some spread from animals to humans, others from humans to humans, and others still do not appear to spread at all. Some diseases affect plants, and few that affect plants seem to affect humans, but some humans can acquire diseases when they come into contact with plants that appear to have no diseases. Any reasonable analysis of the nature of disease must account for all these aspects and many others also. The nature of disease is a topic that has attracted the attention of physicians, scientists and philosophers over millennia. The close association that existed between medicine and philosophy in the classical Egyptian, Palestinian and Greek eras ensured that scholars who flourished in those societies examined the nature of disease. Comparable developments occurred in classical Indian and Chinese civilizations. The natural philosophers of Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe divided into competing schools of thought over the nature of disease. More recent years have witnessed an enormous flourishing of physicians, pathologists, and agriculturalists who study aspects of disease that relate to their individual disciplines. Most of these researchers have, however, examined ever-narrower aspects of specific diseases�such as manifestations, mechanisms and causes�rather than the generic nature of the phenomenon. Some contemporary philosophers, on the other hand, have become interested in general aspects of the topic. They have proposed a number of novel ideas and reached some stimulating conclusions, although they can hardly yet claim to have reached a consensus. This lack of unanimity presumably implies that the issues involved require closer analysis if a formulation is to emerge that most of them can accept. The object of the present thesis is to undertake such an analysis. It will start by outlining in this introduction the general background to the topic. It will then detail the more noteworthy of previously proposed theories about the nature of this phenomenon, classifying them according to their most prominent components, and assessing their several strengths and weaknesses. It will next discuss the specific philosophical issues of definition, causation, and explication in the biomedical context, before suggesting a comprehensive, but succinct, definition that acknowledges many older views about disease, encompasses current usage, and provides a theoretical base from which to work into the future. It will finally test the strengths and weaknesses of that definition to account for observed phenomena and to accommodate some former definitions.

Disease is ubiquitous. Disease afflicts humans. It afflicts animals. It afflicts plants. People refer to disease in their everyday conversation. Newspapers comment upon it. Parliaments enact legislation regarding it. Novelists write about it. Artists depict it. Physicians, veterinary surgeons and agriculturalists seek to combat it. Insurance companies offer reimbursement against it. Anthropologists study it. Philosophers debate its nature, and dictionaries define it. Disease looms large in human consciousness. One might presume that, since disease is so important in daily life, human beings would know exactly what they mean by it. Most people seem to believe instinctively that they understand the nature of disease, and that their ideas about it coincide with other people�s ideas. The definition of disease therefore arouses little controversy in everyday conversation. People use the word disease as readily as they use the words spade, or table or nose. They suggest, when they joke that somebody calls a spade a spade, that the nature of the implement used to dig the garden is so obvious that it requires no further definition. Similarly with a table or a nose. They might debate how many legs a table must have, but�regardless of the answer�rarely deny that it is a table; whilst every human must surely know what a nose is. This high level of agreement about so many commonly used terms perhaps creates an assumption that the meaning of disease is equally obvious and requires no further analysis. Is this, however, really the case? Disease is a somewhat less concrete phenomenon than is a spade or a table or a nose. Its existence, most would agree, is incontrovertible, but its nature is less clear. It is something that seems to befall people and animals and plants. It rarely serves any useful purpose. It often carries dire implications. It is something that most of us would prefer not to have, but rarely succeed in avoiding. It commonly comes unannounced and at inconvenient times. It usually causes distress, but not always. It can have a fatal outcome. Some people appear more prone to it that others. It sometimes sweeps through whole populations producing social devastation, but its manifestations vary. Some diseases affect a person�s whole body, others merely a part of the body; some affect some parts of the body, others other parts. Some diseases only affect humans, whereas others affect both humans and animals. Some spread from animals to humans, others from humans to humans, and others still do not appear to spread at all. Some diseases affect plants, and few that affect plants seem to affect humans, but some humans can acquire diseases when they come into contact with plants that appear to have no diseases. Any reasonable analysis of the nature of disease must account for all these aspects and many others also. The nature of disease is a topic that has attracted the attention of physicians, scientists and philosophers over millennia. The close association that existed between medicine and philosophy in the classical Egyptian, Palestinian and Greek eras ensured that scholars who flourished in those societies examined the nature of disease. Comparable developments occurred in classical Indian and Chinese civilizations. The natural philosophers of Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe divided into competing schools of thought over the nature of disease. More recent years have witnessed an enormous flourishing of physicians, pathologists, and agriculturalists who study aspects of disease that relate to their individual disciplines. Most of these researchers have, however, examined ever-narrower aspects of specific diseases�such as manifestations, mechanisms and causes�rather than the generic nature of the phenomenon. Some contemporary philosophers, on the other hand, have become interested in general aspects of the topic. They have proposed a number of novel ideas and reached some stimulating conclusions, although they can hardly yet claim to have reached a consensus. This lack of unanimity presumably implies that the issues involved require closer analysis if a formulation is to emerge that most of them can accept. The object of the present thesis is to undertake such an analysis. It will start by outlining in this introduction the general background to the topic. It will then detail the more noteworthy of previously proposed theories about the nature of this phenomenon, classifying them according to their most prominent components, and assessing their several strengths and weaknesses. It will next discuss the specific philosophical issues of definition, causation, and explication in the biomedical context, before suggesting a comprehensive, but succinct, definition that acknowledges many older views about disease, encompasses current usage, and provides a theoretical base from which to work into the future. It will finally test the strengths and weaknesses of that definition to account for observed phenomena and to accommodate some former definitions.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Queensland, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2008. / Full text also available online. Scroll down for electronic link.

Thesis (M.A.)--York University, 1998. Graduate Programme in Social Anthropology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 140-151). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pMQ39176.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI Company.

Within eastern Asia, stroke is a major cause of death and disability, and the burden of stroke in this region is predicted to increase. The incidence of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in eastern Asia is higher than in Europe and America, and a greater proportion of strokes are due to cerebral haemorrhage, for which the outcome is poor. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Chinese populations are associated with a higher incidence of severe intracranial carotid disease than Caucasian populations. High economic cost is frequent, as there is a great need for medical care in the initial phase after stroke as well as a need for long-term assistance in the late phase. Given these issues, advance in stroke management is strongly desirable. / Despite recent advances in acute stroke care, there is still lacking powerful and widely applicable routine drug therapies to improve the outcome after stroke. None of the neuroprotective agents has ever been found to be effective in human trials despite promising animal data. Thrombolytic therapy by administering tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) is just eligible for a certain group of patients with hyperacute ischaemic stroke because of the very restricted therapeutic window and hampering side effect of haemorrhage. Perhaps the most significant advance in stroke management is not by pharmacotherapy, but rather concerns the process or system of care for stroke patients. / This research consists of two main parts: Part A is a qualitative case study, which, within a phenomenology framework, explores the implementation issues and managerial influence in a public hospital on the establishment of the stroke unit. Whilst most of the studies on stroke units deal with the efficiency and outcomes of stroke units, exploration of the implementation issues has not been described in the literature. This qualitative case study serves to explore the issues. / Part B is a prospective study by comparative method. Comparing stroke patients was performed in the trial by requiring the study subjects to meet the similar inclusion criteria- age, sex, premorbid functional status (Barthel index 90) and stroke score (NIHSS 3). Consequently, from April 2001 to April 2002, one hundred and eighty-eight patients from the stroke unit treated group and one hundred and seventy-seven patients from the general ward treated group were matched. The study was performed in view of the outcome of stroke unit care in a Chinese population has not been described in the literature, despite different patterns of stroke between Chinese and Caucasians. This part also explores the financial perspective of the stroke unit in a local setting, which is a part of the evaluation programme on cost effectiveness. Economic assessment has become an integral part of policy decision nowadays. Increasingly this trend is extending to medical decision making in day-to-day patient-provider interactions, and is important in the research-practice gap. The reasons for measuring the benefits and outcome include the need to inform professional practice, for example, with appraisal, revalidation and performance management. / In the implementation of the stroke unit, the study took into consideration the following focal areas: Understanding human benefits in social environment; needs assessment by the number of the previous hospitalizations of stroke patients; assessment of client functioning; practice effectiveness evaluation; supportive environment. This research has served to fill the gap in the literature by providing evaluations on a number of perspectives of a stroke unit- outcome, finance and implementation issues, which are the interrelated key issues of management. The highest priority for providers of a stroke service in a Chinese or Asian population must be to establish a stroke unit with a multidisciplinary team that delivers organized stroke care. / Thesis (PhDBusinessandManagement)--University of South Australia, 2005.

Dissertation (Ph.D.) -- The Institute for Clinical Social Work, 1996. / A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Institute of Clinical Social Work in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Thesis (M.D.)--University of New South Wales, 2000. / Also available online.

Thesis (D Phil (Social Work))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Includes bibliographic references. Available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.