Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28949476›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2017

Mistaking the Map for the Territory: What Society Does With Medicine Comment on "Medicalisation and Overdiagnosis: What Society Does to Medicine".

Alistair Wardrope

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The hermeneutics of symptoms.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. How medical technologies shape the experience of illness.Life sciences, society and policy · 2018
    Article
  4. Define and Conquer: How Semantics Foster Progress; A Response to Recent Commentaries.International journal of health policy and management · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alistair WardropeUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Van Dijk et al describe how society's influence on medicine drives both medicalisation and overdiagnosis, and allege that a major political and ethical concern regarding our increasingly interpreting the world through a biomedical lens is that it serves to individualise and depoliticize social problems. I argue that for medicalisation to serve this purpose, it would have to exclude the possibility of also considering problems in other (social or political) terms; but to think that medical descriptions of the world seek to or are able to do this is to misunderstand the purpose and function of model construction in science in general, and medicine in particular. So, if medicalisation is nonetheless used for the depoliticization described by many critics, we must ask what society does with medicine to give it this exclusive authority. I propose that the problem arises from a tendency to mistake the map for the territory, and think a tool to understand certain aspects of the world gives us the complete picture. To resist this process, I suggest health workers should be more open about the purpose and limitations of medicalisation, and the value of alternative descriptions of different aspects of human experience.

Indexed as

MedicalizationMedicineHumansMedical OveruseSocietiesBiomedical ModelMedicalisationPhilosophy of Science

Identifiers

PMID28949476
PMCPMC5627788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.