Selling Sickness

What is medicalization? Some people call it disease mongering for it's tendency to push the diagnostic boundaries of illness while promoting it publicly in the interest for financial/political profit. Others call it medical labeling, believing that it helps those in discomfort to live a happier, healthier life by offering a medical solution. So which one is it? Well, I don't think it has to be one or the other... I think it can be both. There are many definitions and methods to explain this societal concept, so let's start with a few.

Here's a definition by Laura Purdy from her article, Medicalization, Medical Necessity and Female Medicine. She describes it as “[a] problem in medical terms, using medical language to describe a problem, adopting a medical framework to understand a problem, or using medical information to ‘treat’ it” (Purdy, 2001). Personally, I think this definition makes sense. It is neutral and states medicalization as it is. With this, medicalization is just another a venue in providing a solution to a problem. But this definition is incomplete. It lacks a commonly criticized aspect...that medicalization actually creates more issues than it does relieving them.

Purdy quickly points out the neutrality in this definition and adds onto it with another definition from Jenna Sawicki. She says that medicalization “implies the negative phenomena of reducing political, personal, and societal issues to medical problems thereby giving scientific experts the power to ‘solve’ them within the constraints of medical practice" (Purdy, 2001). Leonore Tiefer (the author of FSD: A Case Study of Disease Mongering and Activist Resistance) takes Purdy's definitions and runs with it, depicting that medicalization is when individuals fail to meet societal expectations and or embody taboo conditions, they look for simple solutions, “[setting] the stage for disease mongering, a process that encourages the conversion of socially created anxiety into medical diagnoses suitable to pharmacological treatment” (Teifer, 2006).

Now a perpetrator is introduced into the definition; society. In the United States today, these perpetrators or forces of medicalization (typically drug companies) stand virtually unopposed and unrecognized for the economical, moral, and political interests they represent. We see manipulative television advertisements along with additional applications for already approved drugs and the creation of new diseases or disorders for the purpose of marketing a drug.

But just because pharmaceutical companies enjoy the financial gain from medicalization doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn’t use it. Many times the identification of a new disorder to disease is beneficial for those who suffer and are with out treatment, mainly because it offers hope for recovery and comfort. It is important to recognize that medicalization can be a good thing, but it must be used with integrity and for the interest of patients, and not as a tool for manipulation and economical or political profit.

Unfortunately, we see the manipulation of medical labeling more often than not. Watching the local news here in Tucson, I saw three drug related commercials. The first was offering pills for weight-loss, the second presented a patch for quitting smoking, and the third introduced a drug for restless leg syndrome. With the first two, there is immediately already an issue with the presented ‘problem’. Arguably, excess weight is a life style and choice, often associated with obesity. But the problem that can cause death is hypertension and cardiovascular disease, not excess weight. The same thing arises with smoking because it is a choice, a lifestyle that causes health complications. The restless leg syndrome ad caught my attention because my close friend had just been diagnosed with it. Restless leg syndrome (RLS) is a very real and uncomfortable disorder, but not necessarily a serious, life-threatening situation.

A common question and argument arises – should the drug companies be stopped from abusing medicalization? Technically, the drug companies have the freedom to express whatever they want, so instead there must be a way to both discredit the manipulation and to trust medicalization. In order to differentiate between the two uses of medical labeling, we must become aware of these propaganda techniques and intentions of many big drug companies, along with recognizing that there is a choice as to whether take the medicine or not. We must think critically and be aware of our options. This isn’t an easy task and will be challenging, and as Purdy says “will take a concerted effort by those with a variety of progressive agendas to change that culture to ‘use medicalization for genuine empowerment’” (Purdy, 2001). So, this blog will be an attempt to expose various propaganda techniques used by drug companies and to provide information about obscurely medicalized conditions. Enjoy!

-Maryam G