Category: Ethics

Questioning Biomedicine’s Privileging of Disease and Measurability

Abstract:

Within biomedicine, the diagnosis of disease is often privileged over a patient’s experience of illness. Yet up to 30% of primary care visits might be attributable to persistent illness without a diagnosed disease, including functional somatic syndromes like fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. When clinicians are unable to diagnose disease or correlate symptoms with measurable changes in biomarkers, patients experiencing such an illness are at increased risk for suspicion, misplaced questioning, or having their motives misinterpreted through damaging social and cultural narratives about gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or disability. Adhering strictly to a biomedical model of thinking about disease and diagnosis can prevent clinicians from empathically engaging with patients and helping them navigate their illness experiences.

Source: Kroll C. Questioning Biomedicine’s Privileging of Disease and Measurability. AMA J Ethics. 2021 Jul 1;23(7):E537-541. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2021.537. PMID: 34351263. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34351263/

A Womanist Approach to Caring for Patients With Empirically Unverifiable Symptoms

Abstract:

Some illnesses and diseases are not apparent to onlookers. Conditions like chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, postconcussive syndrome, endometriosis, and many psychiatric illnesses, for example, have symptoms that are not easily or at all measurable. Both clinicians and health care systems, however, tend to focus exclusively on measurability, which can result in evidentiary overreliance and undervaluation of experience narratives and can have clinically, ethically, and socially important consequences for patients with these conditions.

Source: Gatison AM. A Womanist Approach to Caring for Patients With Empirically Unverifiable Symptoms. AMA J Ethics. 2021 Jul 1;23(7):E519-523. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2021.519. PMID: 34351260. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34351260/

Ethical classification of ME/CFS in the United Kingdom

Abstract:

Few conditions have sparked as much controversy as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Professional consensus has long suggested that the condition should be classified as psychiatric, while patients and advocacy groups have insisted it is a serious biological disease that requires medical care and research to develop it. This longstanding debate shifted in 2015, when U.S. governmental health authorities fully embraced medical classification and management. Given that some globally respected health authorities now insist that ME/CFS is a serious biological disease, this paper asks whether it can be ethical for the U.K. practice guideline now in development to characterize the condition as a mental health disorder.

Following a brief history of ME/CFS controversy, I offer three arguments to show that it would be unethical for the U.K. to now characterize ME/CFS as a mental health condition, considering the relevance of that conclusion for ME/CFS guidelines elsewhere and for other contested conditions.

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Source: O’Leary D. Ethical classification of ME/CFS in the United Kingdom. Bioethics. 2019 Feb 8. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12559. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30734339

To Serve or Not to Serve: Ethical and Policy Implications

Abstract:

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) is one of the nation’s more influential health-related non-profit organizations. It plays a large role in shaping health policy by commissioning panels to develop “white papers” describing research and recommendations on a variety of health topics. These white paper publications are often used to help make policy decisions at the legislative and executive levels. Such a prominent institution might seem like a natural ally for policy-related collaborative efforts. As community psychologists, we strongly endorse efforts to positively influence public policy at the national level. However, while serving on influential panels and commissions like the IOM might seem to be very much part of the ethos of our discipline, there are occasions when such institutions are pursuing a mission that inadvertently has the potential to instigate divisive friction among community activists and organizations.

A case study is presented whereby I describe my decision not to accept an invitation to serve on a controversial IOM panel. I explore the ethical challenges regarding maintaining my independence from this institution and its attempt to redefine chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), as well as the process of searching for alternative avenues for collaborating with community activists to influence policy related to these debilitating illnesses.

© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.

Source: Jason LA. To Serve or Not to Serve: Ethical and Policy Implications. Am J Community Psychol. 2017 Sep 18. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12181. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28921637