Pros and cons of medicalization: The example of trauma
Dan J Stein,D. Kaminer,N. Zungu‐Dirwayi,S. Seedat
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15622970500483110
2006-01-01
Abstract:Since the time of Hippocrates, and no doubt even before, there have been vocal and articulate critics of medical practice and values. In the modern era, philosophers and sociologists of medicine have introduced and developed the notion of ‘medicalization’ to describe how a range of different phenomena become seen as ‘disorders’ that require ‘therapy’ (Conrad and Schneider 1980). Typically this term is used in a critical way, that is the extension of medical discourse is seen as inappropriate, and it is argued that interventions other than ‘therapy’ are more appropriate. The BMJ recently devoted a number of pages to debating the limits of medicine (Moynihan and Smith 2002). Psychiatry is particularly often criticized for overextending its reach. Not all people who are suffering for one reason or another should be labelled with ‘depression’, and given ‘pharmacotherapy’. Similarly, it is pointed out that not all active kids should be labelled with a ‘diagnosis’ of hyperactivity, nor ‘treated’ with stimulating agents such as methylphenidate. These kinds of medicalization, it is argued, result in the inappropriate objectification of human suffering and deviance, and in inappropriate prescription of a pill for every ill (Sedgwick 1982). Articles that take this point of view have again recently been published in the BMJ (Double 2002). Areas within psychiatry that seem particularly contested are those involving trauma and violence. It has been argued, for example, that Western psychiatric models of ‘traumatization’ and ‘recovery’ are often inappropriately applied (Summerfield 2002). Similarly, proponents of biological models of violence have been roundly criticised for focusing on individuals at the expense of socio-political theories and interventions (Stein 1994). In the BMJ and elsewhere, such critics emphasize that constructs such as ‘posttraumatic stress disorder’ or ‘impulsive-aggression’ are peculiarly Western, and that ‘talk therapy’ and medication are inappropriate in situations where problems are moral rather than medical (Stein 1994; Summerfield 2002). It is important to recognize the potential value of this kind of critique. Such work emphasizes that science is not merely about the-world-out-there, but also is bound up with a range of social constructions including scientific language and practices (Bhaskar 1978). It reminds us that medicine is not simply a technical and factual field, but also is based in particular kinds of values (Fulford 2002). And it points out that psychiatry cannot be reduced to molecular neurobiology and psychopharmacology, or the provision of a band-aid of ‘counselling’, but also is necessarily about psychological meaning, social contexts, and taking action (Stein 1991; Stein et al. 2002). There are arguably good clinicians and bad clinicians, and the practise of better clinicians may well be consistent with many of the values put forward in critiques of medicine and psychiatry. When a clinician responds to any condition, whether it be a general medical or a psychiatric disorder such as depression or posttraumatic stress disorder, merely in terms of a cookbook diagnosis and accompanying algorithm, so ignoring the person with the condition, the meaning of their symptoms, and the social context, then the standard of care is concomitantly low. Conversely, an emphasis on the person with the condition, the meaning of symptoms, and the social context is precisely the realm emphasized by good practitioners of psychological medicine and psychiatry (Eisenberg 1995). Indeed, it is crucial also to recognize the limitations of these kinds of critique of medicine and psychiatry. Science is not merely about social construction, it involves an ever more powerful appreciation of the causal mechanisms that underlie normal and abnormal somatic and psychological phenomena (Bhaskar 1978). The values of medicine are not necessarily irrational or unfair, but can be wise, and with debate, can be improved further (Stein 1991). Psychiatry is not only about meaning and socio-cultural contexts, but also has much to contribute to understanding the psychosocial mechanisms that underlie somatic and psychological phenomena, and to determining how best to help those who suffer from somatic and psychological symptoms (Stein 1993). Consider, for example, depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although there is room for debate about medical values; there is a wealth of data that people with these particular conditions suffer distress and disability (Kessler et al. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 2006; 7(1): 2 /4