The upshot of medicinal labels

For centuries, in a sincere effort to categorize illness to affect a better treatment, the medical industry has developed a system of labels to identify illness and medical conditions. And, yes, over the past century, many of the historic labels have been dropped and ridiculed — for good reason. Some of these defunct labels have a pernicious, damaging, past.

Take a label that was accepted by the psychiatric community until 1990: Homosexuality. There are cases of electroshock therapy for this diagnosis and label — all too common.

A hundred years ago there was a common diagnosis of “feeblemindedness,” which covered all sorts of illnesses, injuries and birth conditions.

Treatment for feeblemindedness? From this label, people applied new theories such as Eugenics, the erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding.”

In today’s business of medicine, labeling allows for instant identification of the right drug, the prescription of patent medicine to expediently assume proper treatment and a generalization of a patient’s outcome, which is devoid of personalization and often leads to complications and side effects hammering small groups of patent drug takers.

The lawyers, to stem financial loss, force commercials to list “possible” side-effects all the way from rashes to horrible death. It is worth remembering those side-effects are listed because they are known to have happened to someone, somewhere. And let’s not forget that doctors for the asbestos industries were paid to hide the dangers, as were the doctors working in and around the cigarette industries.

But a new breed of doctors is seeing labeling as the opposite of patient care. Faced with the commercial reality of a demand for promises of a cure (if you have “X” and get prescribed “Y,” you can have certainty toward recovery), they now probe deeper, taking the time to delve into individual patent’s ailments and causes of illness that often allows for better long-term treatment.

As one doctor explained on a Swiss radio show, “My patients are conditioned to want to know what exactly is wrong. They want a label.”

He went on to say he sometimes makes up a name and sets about finding a treatment protocol, which usually includes a 30-day convalescence.

“The rest, for many patients, allows the body to stabilize, makes minor drug administration more effective and, above all, gives greater hope than simply a pat on the back and a handful of prescriptions.”

Part of the problem with labeling is that the government has gotten involved — sometimes not for the better. If you can’t, for example, get a formal medical diagnosis of PTSD or ADHD, you can’t qualify for financial assistance or special schooling.

If you are sad, truly sad, and cannot handle the stress of not being up to par for work, only a doctor’s diagnosis and label of “depression” along with suitable drugs, can qualify you with medical bills and allow leave from work.

Remember, medical evaluation and medical expertise individually assessed and overseen is always the best route to take. The pitfalls come from the labels used that may — or may not — add to the stress for the patient trying to navigate insurance companies, government assistance and employers’ sick leave criteria.

Diagnosis should not become the necessary key, the only acceptable label, for support and common sense.

Peter Riva, a former resident of Amenia Union, now resides in New Mexico.