Skip to content
PaperFren

What does it mean to say gene therapy 'cures' a disease?

Open paper intelligence

The word 'cure' means different things to different people, so doctors should avoid it with patients and define it narrowly when it is used to justify funding or prices.

Source

What is a cure through gene therapy? An analysis and evaluation of the use of "cure"

Baas L, Meijer K, Bredenoord AL, et al. · Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024

doi.org/10.1007/s11019-024-10223-wRead the full paper ↗12 citationscc by

Study at a glance

Design
Qualitative / archival — Conceptual analysis of how 'cure' is used in literature from oncology, psychiatry, hepatitis C care and Deaf studies, then applied to hemophilia gene therapy
N
No participants; an argument drawing on published literature, not a systematic sample
Population
The concept of cure as used in medicine, focused on gene therapy for hemophilia
Outcome
Thesis: cure is a practical term whose meaning should fit its setting; avoid it in the clinic, define it narrowly for reimbursement and research

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

What they did

The authors treat 'cure' as a practical concept rather than one with a single correct definition. They survey how the word is used in several contested medical fields (cancer, psychiatry, hepatitis C, deafness) and sort the uses into types. They then apply these types to gene therapy for hemophilia across three settings: the clinic, reimbursement decisions, and research funding.

What they found

They identify three interpretations of cure: normalizing the body, obtaining a normal life, and a change in identity, plus fields that avoid the word in favor of terms like remission, recovery or survivorship. In hemophilia, a gene therapy may normalize clotting but leave joint damage, inheritance and a lifelong illness history, so it is never a simple return to prior health. They argue the word should probably be dropped in patient conversations, while reimbursement and trial settings need a modest, specified, time-bound definition.

The limits

What it doesn't show

The literature review is not systematic, and the authors say their list of settings is not exhaustive, so other meanings of cure may be missed. The argument is built mainly around hemophilia in wealthy countries where good treatments already exist, which may not transfer to disorders with no alternatives. Claims about patient expectations rest on the authors' own earlier interview study rather than data presented here. It does not settle which concept of health or disease is correct, only recommends context-dependent use.

Key terms

Practical concept
A concept whose meaning is fixed by the job it does in a particular setting, rather than by one definition with necessary and sufficient conditions.
Cure as normalization of the body
Cure understood as restoring normal bodily function, often measured over a set time after treatment, such as years without relapse.
Cure as a normal life
Cure understood as ending the effects of illness on daily life, including stigma, work and social opportunities.
Cure as identity change
Cure understood as a shift in who a person is, such as leaving behind the identity of a patient or a disability community.
Cancer survivorship
A term used instead of cure for life after cancer treatment, recognizing ongoing care needs and effects on the person and family.

Flashcards

1 / 11

0 of 11 answers reviewed

Research intelligence for this paper

See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.

Open paper intelligence

Quiz yourself

1 / 5

Which interpretation of cure fits best as a trial endpoint, according to the authors?

Common questions

Why not just give cure one precise definition?

The authors follow recent work on health and disease arguing such terms serve different functions in different institutions, so one definition would fit some settings badly.

Why avoid the word cure with patients?

Patients and doctors may mean different things by it, so it can create unrealistic expectations and undermine informed choice; specific outcomes and quality-of-life effects are clearer.

Where is a strict definition useful?

In trials and reimbursement decisions, where an outcome must be measurable over a set period, a narrow body-normalization definition works best.

More on Philosophy of science