Medicalization is frequently defined as a process by which some non-medical aspects of human life become to be considered as medical problems. Overdiagnosis, on the other hand, is most often defined as diagnosing a biomedical condition that in the absence of testing would not cause symptoms or death in the person’s lifetime. Medicalization and overdiagnosis are related concepts as both expand the extension of the concept of disease. They are both often used normatively to critique unwarranted or contested expansion of (...) medicine and to address health services that are considered to be unnecessary, futile, or even harmful. However, there are important differences between the concepts, as not all cases of overdiagnosis are medicalizations and not all cases of medicalizations are overdiagnosis. The objective of this article is to clarify the differences between medicalization and overdiagnosis. It will demonstrate how the subject matter of medicalization traditionally has been non-medical (social or cultural everyday life) phenomena, while the subject matter of overdiagnosis has been biological or biomolecular conditions or processes acknowledged being potentially harmful. They also refer to different types of uncertainty: medicalization is concerned with indeterminacy, while overdiagnosis is concerned with lack of prognostic knowledge. Medicalization is dealing with sickness (sick role) while overdiagnosis with disease. Despite these differences, medicalization and overdiagnosis are becoming more alike. Medicalization is expanding, encompassing the more “technical” aspects of overdiagnosis, while overdiagnosis is becoming more ideologized. Moreover, with new trends in modern medicine, such as P4 (preventive, predictive, personal, and participatory) medicine, medicalization will become all-encompassing, while overdiagnosis more or less may dissolve. In the end they may converge in some total “iatrogenization.” In doing so, the concepts may lose their precision and critical sting. (shrink)

Health promotion involves social and environmental interventions designed to benefit and protect health. It often harmfully impacts the environment through air and water pollution, medical waste, g...

Systems medicine, which is based on computational modelling of biological systems, is emerging as an increasingly prominent part of the personalized medicine movement. It is often promoted as ‘P4 medicine’. In this article, we test promises made by some of its proponents that systems medicine will be able to develop a scientific, quantitative metric for wellness that will eliminate the purported vagueness, ambiguity, and incompleteness—that is, normativity—of previous health definitions. We do so by examining the most concrete and relevant evidence (...) for such a metric available: a patent that describes a systems medicine method for assessing health and disease. We find that although systems medicine is promoted as heralding an era of transformative scientific objectivity, its definition of health seems at present still normatively based. As such, we argue that it will be open to influence from various stakeholders and that its purported objectivity may conceal important scientific, philosophical, and political issues. We also argue that this is an example of a general trend within biomedicine to create overly hopeful visions and expectations for the future. (shrink)

Proponents of the emerging field of P4 medicine argue that computational integration and analysis of patient-specific “big data” will revolutionize our health care systems, in particular primary care-based disease prevention. While many ambitions remain visionary, steps to personalize medicine are already taken via personalized genomics, mobile health technologies and pilot projects. An important aim of P4 medicine is to enable disease prevention among healthy persons through detection of risk factors. In this paper, we examine the current status of P4 medicine (...) in light of historical and current challenges to predictive and preventive medicine, including overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Moreover, we ask whether it is likely that in silico integration of patient-specific data will be able to better deal such challenges and to turn risk predictions into disease-preventive actions in a wider social context. Given the lack of evidence that P4 medicine can tip the balance between benefits and harms in preventive medicine, we raise concerns about the current promotion of P4 medicine as a solution to the current challenges in public health. (shrink)

I argue here that Weberian disenchantment is manifest in the triumph of instrumental reason and the expansion of analytic enquiry, which now dominates not simply those sciences upon which medicine depends, but medical practice itself. I suggest ways that analytic enquiry, also referred to here as anatomical reasoning, are part of a particular ideology—a way of seeing, speaking about, and inhabiting the world—that often fails to serve the health of patients because it is incapable of “seeing” them in the moral (...) sense described by Iris Murdoch and others. I use the work of James Elkins and Wendell Berry to call for the recovery of a way of seeing the human body as both other and more than an object of scientific enquiry and social control. (shrink)

BackgroundThe safety of sleeping pills has increased dramatically during the last 100 years, from barbiturates to bensodiazepines to modern day so-called Z-drugs.MethodsThe circumstances of prescribing sleeping pills in the early 20th century are illustrated by summarizing the main storyline of a novel by Swedish writer Vilhelm Moberg. This is followed by a thought experiment and a theoretical discussion.ResultsIn his 1937 novel Sömnlös (Swedish for sleepless) Vilhelm Moberg portrayed existential and relational distress in relation to insomnia. In a thought experiment, past (...) progresses in sleeping pills safety are projected into the future. Thereby, it is claimed that important issues in the area of philosophy of medicine come to the fore. This leads to a theoretical discussion about broader questions concerning the role of the physician, the goals of medicine (as described by Lennart Nordenfelt), the concept of pharmaceuticalisation (as described notably by sociologist of sleep Simon J. Williams and co-workers), and health enhancement (c.f. Carl Elliott and the alleged wish to be better than well).ConclusionInsomnia is a prism through which important philosophical and sociological questions related to the practice of medicine can be asked. (shrink)

“Medicalization” has been a contentious notion since its introduction centuries ago. While some scholars lamented a medical overreach into social domains, others hailed its promise for social justice advocacy. Against the backdrop of a growing commitment to health equity across the nation, this article reviews historical interpretations of medicalization, offers an application of the term to non-biologic risk factors for disease, and presents the case of housing the demonstrate the great potential of medicalizing poverty.

This article delves into the significance and role of metaphors in shaping knowledge, perceptions, and decisions within the healthcare domain. Through a critical analysis of their impact, particularly in the dynamics between healthcare professionals and patients, three dimensions are proposed for unraveling their significance: the political dimension views metaphors as agents of power and tools for legitimizing inequalities; the cultural dimension sees them as cultural residues challenging prevailing biomedical knowledge; and the ethical dimension raises questions about the moral implications of (...) the constructed narratives. This holistic approach aims to enhance our understanding of the intricate interplay between language, cognition, and the experience of illness, ultimately advocating for more comprehensive approaches in healthcare. (shrink)

Proponents of the emerging field of P4 medicine argue that computational integration and analysis of patient-specific “big data” will revolutionize our health care systems, in particular primary care-based disease prevention. While many ambitions remain visionary, steps to personalize medicine are already taken via personalized genomics, mobile health technologies and pilot projects. An important aim of P4 medicine is to enable disease prevention among healthy persons through detection of risk factors. In this paper, we examine the current status of P4 medicine (...) in light of historical and current challenges to predictive and preventive medicine, including overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Moreover, we ask whether it is likely that in silico integration of patient-specific data will be able to better deal such challenges and to turn risk predictions into disease-preventive actions in a wider social context. Given the lack of evidence that P4 medicine can tip the balance between benefits and harms in preventive medicine, we raise concerns about the current promotion of P4 medicine as a solution to the current challenges in public health. (shrink)

This paper draws on qualitative research using focus groups involving 38 general practitioners (GPs). It explores their attitudes and feelings about (over-)medicalisation. Our main findings were that GPs had a complex representation of (over-)medicalisation, composed of many professional, social, technological, economic and relational issues. This representation led GPs to feel uncomfortable. They felt pressure from all sides, which led them to question their social roles and responsibilities. We identified four main GP-driven proposals to deal with (over-)medicalisation: (1) focusing on the (...) communication in doctor–patient relationships; (2) grounding practices in evidence-based medicine; (3) relying on clinical skills, experience and intuition; and (4) promoting training, leadership bodies and social movements. Drawing on these proposals, we identify and discuss five paradigms that underpin GPs’ attitudes toward (over-)medicalisation: underlying social factors, preventing medicalisation, managing uncertainties, sharing medical decision-making and thinking about care as a rationale. We suggest that these paradigms constitute a defensive posture against GPs’ uncomfortable feelings. All five defensive paradigms were identified in our focus groups, echoing contemporary political debates on public health. This non-exhaustive framework forms the outline of what we call ordinary defensive medicine. GPs’ uncomfortable feelings are the origin of their defensive solutions and the manifestation of their vulnerability. This professional vulnerability can be shared with the patient’s vulnerability. In our view, this creates an opportunity to rediscover patient–doctor relationships and examine patients’ and doctors’ vulnerabilities together.“There are many cases in which—though the signs of a confusion of tongues between the patient and his doctor are painfully present—there is apparently no open controversy. Some of these cases demonstrate the working of two other, often interlinked, factors. One is the patient’s increasing anxiety and despair, resulting in more and more fervently clamouring demands for help. Often the doctor’s response is guilt feelings and despair that his most conscientious, most carefully devised examinations do not seem to throw real light on the patient’s “illness”, that his most erudite, most modern, most circumspect therapy does not bring real relief.” (Balint M. The Doctor, His Patient and the Illness. New York: International Universities; 2005. [1957].)“Theories about care put an unprecedented emphasis on vulnerability—taking up that challenge to transform what really counts in today’s hospitals implies letting colleagues inside previously closely guarded professional boundaries” (2, our translation). (shrink)