Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Uwe Reinhardt, perhaps America's funniest
economist, spoke some years ago of what might happen as spending on
health care ate up ever larger chunks of gross domestic product. Coast
to coast America would become one enormous hospital, with everyone either working in health care or being ill (or both). Reinhardt might
therefore appreciate this issue on medicalisation Not that economists don't get a look in. Amartya Sen, an even more
distinguished economist, discusses the paradox that people in America
feel much less well than those in Bihar, India, though their life
expectancy is much better (p 860). Indeed, a direct relation seems to
exist between self reported morbidity and life expectancy. He uses this
example to caution against assuming that patients' perceptions should
always trump those of experts.
But the shadow that really hangs over this issue is that of Ivan
Illich It's also a diversion of resources. And here the pharmaceutical
industry comes in for particular criticism. Ray Moynihan and colleagues
accuse it of "extending the boundaries of treatable disease to expand
markets for new products" (p 886). Barbara Mintzes echoes this in her
argument against direct to consumer advertising of drugs (p 908). In
1999 Americans saw an average of nine prescription drug adverts a day
on television, portraying the dual message of a pill for every ill Indeed, this issue isn't all one sided. Shah Ebrahim asserts that the
medicalisation of old age should be encouraged because treating the
health problems of older people is effective and attempts to ration
care on the grounds of age are unfair (p 861).
And though doctors are accused of encouraging or at least colluding in
medicalisation, the alternative view that doctors are just as much its
victims is also prominent. "The bad things of life: old age, death,
pain, and handicap are thrust on doctors to keep families and society
from facing them," say Leonard Leibovici and Michel Lièvre (p 866).
"There is a boundary beyond which medicine has only a small role."
When doctors are forced to go beyond it "they do not gain power or
control: they suffer."
That might suggest that Illich has won the argument. Indeed, David
Clark, in his article on the "postmodern specialty" of palliative
medicine, thinks he has (p 905). In the 1970s he says, there was a
"much more unitary and optimistic view of medicine. Now the
. . . system is pervaded with doubt,
scepticism, and mistrust."
which discusses
much the same problem but from a doctor's eye view, rather than an
economist's.
author of Medical Nemesis and Limits to
Medicine (reviewed, along with other old classics, on p 923). His
argument, explained in the opening editorial (p 859), is that modern
medicine has become a threat to health by undermining the capacity of
individuals and societies to cope with death, pain, and sickness.
and
"an ill for every pill." Nevertheless, Silvia Bonaccorso and
Jeffrey Sturchio manage a spirited defence of "liberalised direct to
consumer information" (p 910).
Footnotes
To receive Editor's choice by email each week subscribe via our website: www.bmj.com/cgi/customalert
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+