Controversy has surrounded the latest publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of mental health disorders, in part because of concerns that the guideline pathologizes many behaviors that some people might consider normal, theoretically increasing the opportunity to prescribe pharmaceuticals for non-pathological behavior. But beyond the field of psychiatry, there are increasing concerns that “medicalization” may be doing more harm than good for patients (especially where tests and therapies have marginal benefit but potentially great risks), and may be influenced by profit motives and desires to define disease so expansively as to intrude on normal living to a stifling degree. A recent comprehensive study of medical panels’ decisions about expanding disease definitions shed some light on this debate, and revealed some concerning findings…
- U.S. versus European healthcare costs: the data
- Chocolate consumption, Nobel laureates, and crappy statistics
- Big data mining and new hypotheses in mental health research
- Soda and global obesity: are sugar-sweetened beverages relevant outside the United States?
- Occupational health in the electronic age: disease in the new sweatshop