ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Cross-Check

Cross-Check


Critical views of science in the news
Cross-Check Home

The Curse of Iatrogenesis: When “Cures” Make Us Sicker

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



hammer and sickle of communismIn my previous post, I proposed that much or all of the effectiveness of antidepressants may stem from the placebo effect. In Anatomy of an Epidemic (Crown, 2010), the journalist Robert Whitaker raises the even more disturbing possibility that psychiatric drugs, on balance, may be making many people sicker. Whitaker notes that over the past two decades, prescriptions for medications for depression, anxiety and psychosis have soared; meanwhile, the number of Americans receiving disability payments for mental illness in the U.S. has tripled. If you are interested in Whitaker’s thesis—and you should be—check out his book and his blog Mad in America.

But my primary topic in this post is not Whitaker’s claim per se, but the larger issue of iatrogenesis, a term—coined from the Greek word for healer, iatros—that refers to harmful effects of treatment. Iatrogenesis—including faulty diagnoses, prescriptions and outright malpractice—contributes to the deaths of 120,000 Americans a year, according to "When Doctors Make Mistakes," a 1999 article in The New Yorker by the physician Atul Gawande. If Whitaker is right, drug treatments for mental illness represent a massive case of iatrogenesis. There are many other such occurrences, especially if the meaning of treatment is expanded to include realms beyond medicine. Here are a few examples, small and very big, that come to mind:

Plastic football helmets: In the 1940s professional and amateur football players began wearing plastic helmets, which were designed to provide more protection than leather ones. Unfortunately, many players started using their plastic-encased heads like battering rams, sometimes causing severe injuries not only to opponents but also to themselves. The plastic helmet is also thought to contribute to the rising numbers of concussions and even brain damage suffered by football players, according to the technology historian Edward Tenner, author of Why Things Bite Back (Vintage, 1997). In the same way, Tenner suggests, the introduction of boxing gloves in the early 20th century reduced the number of cuts suffered by bare-knuckled boxers "while increasing less-visible cumulative brain damage from repeated rotational blows."



Overprotective parenting
: In "How to Land your Kid in Therapy," a new article in The Atlantic, the psychotherapist Lori Gottlieb notes that many modern parents are so obsessed with the happiness of their children that they continually praise them even for trivial accomplishments and try to spare them any emotional distress. The paradoxical result, Gottlieb fears, may be that children end up not knowing how to cope with the setbacks and disappointments that inevitably befall them. Gottlieb compares this effect with an excessive obsession with children’s hygiene, which can limit their exposure to pathogens and hence prevent them from developing robust immune systems.

Humanitarian aid: Every year affluent nations as well as nonprofit groups such as Oxfam give billions in aid to poor nations. Who could possibly criticize these altruistic programs? Yet in Dead Aid (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009), Dambisa Moyo, an investment banker born in Zambia and educated at Oxford and Harvard, argues that aid to Africa has on balance been harmful because it fosters dependence and corruption. In The Crisis Caravan (Metropolitan Books, 2010), Linda Polman, a Dutch journalist, charges that such aid—especially funds, food, medical supplies and other items funneled into war-wracked regions like Darfur—ends up exacerbating rather than relieving violence and suffering. Militants steal aid or demand a cut from aid workers, Polman asserts; they even commit atrocities—such as cutting arms and feet off civilians—to attract more international attention and hence more assistance. For a troubling discussion of the adverse consequences of humanitarian aid, see this article by Philip Gourevitch in The New Yorker, "Alms Dealers."

Religion: Religions can all be viewed as potential cures for the trials and tribulations of the human condition. Setting aside questions about the validity of religious propositions, we still must wonder whether religion on balance has helped or harmed humanity. Believers can point to all the good works done by people of faith—Gandhi and Martin Luther King come to mind—whereas atheists can point to all the violence—from the Crusades to the 9/11 attacks—carried out in the name of religion. Given the enormity of the issue, there is a surprising paucity of good data on the pros and cons of religion. But according to this 2005 article in the Journal of Religion and Society by the dinosaur artist and scholar Gregory Paul, "higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies." Paul attributes the higher rates of social problems in the U.S. compared with other first world democracies—such as Japan, France and Germany—to its greater religiosity.

Communism: Marx and other theorists proposed socialism as a cure for poverty, injustice, war and other perennial scourges of human history. In principle, socialism seems sensible and, in fact, even the U.S., its commitment to free-market capitalism notwithstanding, helps care for the poor, unemployed and sick. But the variant of socialism known as communism, which calls for total state control of the economy, represents the worst case of iatrogenesis of all time. Counting wars, insurgencies, famines and other forms of state-induced deprivation, communism has resulted in the deaths of 130,000,000 people, according to political scientist Rudolph Rummel. Stalin alone was responsible for 43,000,000 deaths, Rummel asserts, making him the greatest mass murderer of all time. "Communism [has] been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen," Rummel wrote. "It failed utterly."

Looking at the ubiquity of iatrogenesis through history, perhaps we should be asking this question: What proclaimed improvements for humanity have been unalloyed successes?

Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons





Rights & Permissions

Comments 7 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. weltschmerz 8:24 pm 07/18/2011

    The way communism was achieved in Russia did cause famines, wars, etc. But once established, the picture was totally different. Crime, disease and starvation in Russia is now rampant compared to 1960-1990, thanks to capitalism and democracy.
    And the claim that "Stalin alone was responsible for 43,000,000 deaths" is highly political. Serious historians would never quote such a figure.

    Link to this
  2. 2. jgrosay 7:54 am 07/20/2011

    Sorry, Iatros doesn’t mean harmful effect of medicine, Iatros means just medicine or medical ( Psychiatry means mind medicine ). It seems that the subset of schizophrenics that do commit more violence are the religious theme psychotics; should you look for an anarchistic theological explanation for the fact you point of places with more penetration of religious beliefs having a higher crime rate, you can say that devils do try to induce in temptations those far away from them and from becoming damned.

    Link to this
  3. 3. jgrosay 8:02 am 07/20/2011

    A better translation of Iatrogenic would be "caused by medicine"; although the term is currently circumscribed to untoward noxious effects of medical therapy, perhaps it doesn’t necessarily refer only to bad effects.

    Link to this
  4. 4. jgrosay 8:13 am 07/20/2011

    Stalin deliberately killed by hunger 5 million Ukranians, herr world pain seems to justify this and all other deaths caused by the insane strenght in applying means to reinforce marxist socialim in the result of this crimes, the so called actual socialism,a political and economical system very few of his former subdits will endorse now. Marxism is a so fool way of thought that if you apply the thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach to the past century history, thesis would be capitalism, antithesis socialism and synthesis nacionalsozialism. Thus, under their own rationale, CCCP may have commited a crime against marxism when resisting Hitler’s invasion of Russia. No-thoughts lead to nothing. Happy un-aniversary

    Link to this
  5. 5. jgrosay 9:32 am 07/20/2011

    One of the reasons of the rampant crime rate in the formerly communist countries may be that their educational system failed in building a functioning ethical and social-solidarity thinking; when the boot that kept them blocked dissapeared, people entered a fight-for-your-life attitude, as they had had no ethical education, but constraints to freedom. Having solved the surplus labour philosophical question may be good for people thinking just in theories,utopias, but adds nothing to the worker’s wellfare. It’s hard noticing the difference in the surplus going to a corporation or to a political party, that in fact is the owner of everything. "Capitalism is the exploitation of men by men, and socialism is the reverse" – Russian joke -. As no comparative trial was done on the results of marxist economy versus capitalist economy, perhaps the case for Austria and Hungary would be one of this, it’s impossible to show which system does produce better welfare state. People focusing on philosophical issues are better kept out of power, as the sole justification for the existence of power is the public services system and the law, police and defense reinforcement, and the mind of people good in administering the production of good and services is different, some times opposite to the mind of those fighting for power, understanding philosophical problems or taking care of the orthodoxy. Marxism says the goal of state is just regulating production, but people claiming being marxists just stuck in the period of regulating minds, and this in a way that puts the party members in an indisputable top political and economical position. Such kind of experiments are extremely harmful, but the truth is that leftist and rightist persons do differ in their brain biochemistry and other genetically ruled traits, so there will always be somebody trying to rebuild such kind of system. The big defect in current capitalism is that de facto, those with economical power have more capacity to influence politician’s programs than common people, and direct democracy is hard to implement and has its own risks.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Diogenes11 10:55 am 07/20/2011

    You forgot to add "Science" as the greatest ‘iatrogenic problem’.
    Every bullet and bomb was developed by scientific progress. A dispassionate alien observer would note that no facet of scientific progress has been as rapid as our ability to kill each other and our environment, directly and indirectly.

    With a simple push of a button (and much computing power, satellite relays, aircraft, submarines and missiles) Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin can kill perhaps 4 or 5 billion people.

    Our exploding harpoons with laser rangefinders hunt whales to extinction, the way our power boats and sonar imaging destroyed the Atlantic codfish. Our bulldozers clear-fell the Amazon and Asian rainforests.

    Most effective of all, our refrigerants and aerosol sprays have damaged the atmospheric ozone layer, and we warm the entire planet as a byproduct of our industrial progress.

    Sadly for this magazine, it is the eponymous scientific American like Al Gore, with his love of internet gadgets, his SUVs and his airline flights, who is the principal cause of global warming – not the overprotective footballer’s parent or the religious communist aidworker, and certainly not the subsistence farmers and fishermen of Bangladesh or Tuvalu.

    As Oppenheimer cited Hindu scriptures, we are become the destroyers of our own world.

    Link to this
  7. 7. sunnystrobe 9:49 am 07/22/2011

    What else can we expect? After all,we are only Chimps by nature,Chimps of the Third Kind, (over-bred & over-breeding),let loose on the planet. Let’s blame it on Evolution. (and call it Evilution!)

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article



This function is currently unavailable

X