Medicalisation

Post Reply New Topic

I read an interesting book over Christmas, Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. The book covers various aspects of healthcare, such as homeopathy, nutritionists (as opposed to dieticians), MMR.

Writing about autism, Goldacre refers to an author, Luke Jackson, quotes from Jackson's book "Freaks, Geeks and Aspergers Syndrome", as an example of what he calls "medicalisation". What he is talking about is the idea that diseases are being invented in order to sell treatments.

Goldacre is a psychiatrist, and I think he is making a very serious point. So I wondered what you all think about this.

HAven't read this book but Goldacre is a legend. He does a largely ignored column in the Guardian newspaper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/badscience I looked but couldn't find a related article) which is probably what this book is culled from. It's on the list of books to buy for sure.

Heh, well, if diseases are being invented to sell treatments, Asperger's isn't one of them. It's definitely real.

Callista, he's not saying Aspergers isn't real. He's saying it shouldn't be medicalised. I don't think he has thought through the detailed implications of the idea: he seems to be on a mission to get other people to think about things. When I try to think about it I get a headache and I'd love to know what other people think. I feel sure that someone here will be able to express in words some of the nebulous thoughts that are in my head when I try to work out what the consequences would be

a) of declaring that anyone who can talk and has an IQ above 70 is officially not disabled by autism and not entitled to any support, treatment or benefits, or even an assessment.
(minimum medicalisation).

or

b) of declaring that anyone who wants an assessment can have one and they will be diagnosed according to DSM V, with support and treatment available even for the sub-clinical levels on a paid-for basis. (Maximum medicalisation)

This is not a new idea. Foucault talks about this at length in his works.

I think the author, Ben Goldacre makes a valid point and also completely misses the point.
In this age, AS comes under a medical paradigm.
In, for example, the 17th Century, it was subsumed under two paradigms depending on severity - the madness/asylum paradigm and the monastic christian paradigm. (many AS people would have ended up in these two realms.) So, you and I may have been either a cleric or nun, or sadly, chained to the wall of the dungeon or residing on the infamous Ship of Fools in the harbour or on the Thames!

In other cultures, the AS individual might be included under a spiritual shamanic paradigm etc etc. Or he or she may be seen as a good luck talisman or a bad spirit.

The condition is real throughout history, but its interpretation and classification alters in relation to the prevailing the thinking of the time and the culture in which the AS person is identified. As such it is defined and redefined over and over again in all sorts of ways.

Nothing original about Goldacre's ideas. I hope he quotes his sources.


Currently, the rise of psychology and medicine does mean that the AS condition is medicalised in a way it never has been before. I think it is important for individuals to be aware of this, as well as the way such medicalisation generates an industry that is hellbent on "treating" the defective individual in all manner of ways. (hyperbaric chamber treatment., ABA, etc. )

I would also encourage AS people to do a bit of research on labelling theory, so they can be more informed about the pro's and cons of their AS and how it may be viewed in the broader society and by various professionals we come across on our journeys as ASD people.