This essay explores the long Western history of anxieties about feigned illness connected specifically to social policy. There is a remarkable consistency of such anxieties across time, as they appear in almost every major historical period in the West since the Middle Ages.

The observation that neurological illnesses follow recurrent hits to the head was tempered by the terms that first called the diseases into scientific existence: “punch-drunk,” “slugnutty,” “slaphappy,” “goofy,” “punchy,” and a host of other colloquialisms accompanying class identities. Thus the discovery of disease and its medicalization ran straight into a countervailing belief about losers—losers in boxing, losers in life, losers in general. To medicalize such individuals was to fly in the face of a culture that made them jokes. Yet a (...) subculture began to emerge around pathological understandings: first in medicine, then in journalism, then in the courts, and finally with patient accounts about illness. (shrink)

Reflecting on Smith (2021) in this issue, this commentary extends our consideration of issues in carceral health and questions the dehumanizing language we sometimes use—including in public health and public health ethics—to talk about persons held in incarceration. Even the language we use for the carceral system itself (such as ‘criminal justice system’) is fraught: it casts a laudatory light on the system and papers over its role in compounding racial health inequities and in sustaining colonialism. A host of issues (...) call out for ethical analysis, using lenses that can encompass the tensions and contradictions experienced by people within the system who deliver healthcare and those within the system trying to access that care. Beyond access to health care (promotion, prevention, treatment and palliation), the societal commitment to dealing with social issues by depriving people of many key social determinants of health is at the heart of many of these tensions and contradictions. (shrink)

Prescription opioid policies too often reflect over a century's worth of moralizing about the nature of opioid use disorder, the value of pain, and the meaning of suffering. The social and legal penalties to prescribers run in one direction—avoid overprescribing, however defined, at all costs. The lack of shared definitions is problematic for formulating and evaluating opioid policy. For example, the variant definitions of “misuse,” “abuse,” and “addiction” complicate estimates of morbidity. There are also no widely accepted definitions of misprescribing (...) and overprescribing. I offer here a modest attempt at the categorization of misprescribing: inadvertent overprescribing, corrupt overprescribing, qualitative overprescribing, quantitative overprescribing, multiclass overprescribing, and underprescribing. (shrink)