{"title":"Biopolitics at the Nexus of Chronic and Infectious Diseases.","authors":"N D Brantly","doi":"10.1007/s11673-024-10405-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Non-communicable (chronic) and communicable (infectious) diseases constitute the leading causes of death worldwide. They appear to impact populations in developed and developing nations differently with changing trends in the landscape of human conditions. Greater understanding of changing disease burdens should influence the planning of health programmes, the implementation of related interventions, and policymaking efforts on a national and global scale. However, the knowledge of disease burdens does not reflect how states and global health organizations prioritize their efforts in addressing them. This work aims to address the discrepancy in public health priority setting by improving our understanding of how the two disease categories impact the human condition. It reviews two case studies, COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, as representative cases of an infectious and a chronic disease, respectively, to answer the following question. How does biopolitics, as the governance of human bodies, at the nexus of infectious and chronic disease, impact national and global public health priorities? This work contextualizes and reframes the relationship towards disease categories by focusing on three primary themes: risk, current public health interventions, and funding priorities for each case study analysed. It argues that the politics over life at the nexus of chronic and infectious diseases, best conceived as future-oriented economic optimization, directs the efforts of prioritization in healthcare based on risk and responsibility-based relationship between multiple stakeholders.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10405-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Non-communicable (chronic) and communicable (infectious) diseases constitute the leading causes of death worldwide. They appear to impact populations in developed and developing nations differently with changing trends in the landscape of human conditions. Greater understanding of changing disease burdens should influence the planning of health programmes, the implementation of related interventions, and policymaking efforts on a national and global scale. However, the knowledge of disease burdens does not reflect how states and global health organizations prioritize their efforts in addressing them. This work aims to address the discrepancy in public health priority setting by improving our understanding of how the two disease categories impact the human condition. It reviews two case studies, COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, as representative cases of an infectious and a chronic disease, respectively, to answer the following question. How does biopolitics, as the governance of human bodies, at the nexus of infectious and chronic disease, impact national and global public health priorities? This work contextualizes and reframes the relationship towards disease categories by focusing on three primary themes: risk, current public health interventions, and funding priorities for each case study analysed. It argues that the politics over life at the nexus of chronic and infectious diseases, best conceived as future-oriented economic optimization, directs the efforts of prioritization in healthcare based on risk and responsibility-based relationship between multiple stakeholders.
期刊介绍:
The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following:
-philosophy-
bioethics-
economics-
social theory-
law-
public health and epidemiology-
anthropology-
psychology-
feminism-
gay and lesbian studies-
linguistics and discourse analysis-
cultural studies-
disability studies-
history-
literature and literary studies-
environmental sciences-
theology and religious studies