So here, at last, is a rule for which diseases we offer sympathy, and which we offer >condemnation: if giving condemnation instead of sympathy decreases the >incidence of the disease enough to be worth the hurt feelings, condemn; >otherwise, sympathize.
Almost agreed: It is also important to recheck
Something unpleasant; when you have it, you want to get rid of it
to see if reducing the incidence of the disease is actually a worthwhile goal.
On another note
Cancer satisfies every one of these criteria, and so we have no qualms whatsoever >about classifying it as a disease.
Criteria
Something rare; the vast majority of people don’t have it
and perhaps
Something discrete; a graph would show two widely separate populations, one with the disease and one without, and not a normal distribution.
are somewhat arguable, at least for some types.
Quoth Wikipedia
Autopsy studies of Chinese, German, Israeli, Jamaican, Swedish, and Ugandan men who died of other causes have found prostate cancer in thirty percent of men in their 50s, and in eighty percent of men in their 70s
Very good article!
A couple of comments:
Almost agreed: It is also important to recheck
On another note