The medicalization of the human condition: pathologizing natural discomfort

It will not seem strange to us to hear that we suffer from the “post-vacation syndrome” if we feel emotionally depressed when we return from a trip and we suddenly reencounter the routine or, on the contrary, that we suffer from the "free time syndrome" if we go on vacation and find it difficult to relax because we are used to leading a very fast pace of life. busy.

These labels, despite being used normally and may seem harmless, are a reflection of how our society has become intolerant of discomfort, pain and uncertainty.

This has led us to pathologize states of mind, feelings and emotions that are inherent to the human condition such as sadness, anger, stress, problems in adolescence or loneliness, among others, and that could have more to do with “feeling bad” than with “suffering from an illness” (Pérez, Bobo and Arias, 2013).

• Related article: "Psychopharmaceuticals: drugs that act on the brain"

The health paradox

To the above is added what we call the "health paradox"In other words, what occurs in more developed countries when the definition of health is very objective and provides feedback for the growth of problems declared in medical consultation.

This happens, for example, when the description of symptoms to identify a disease or disorder is very specific and involves a series of “symptoms” that can also appear in difficult situations or conflicting.

Thus, it is common to hear someone say that they are "depressed" not to say that they are "sad", or that they have "anxiety" not to say that they are nervous. Similarly, the more resources are expanded in the health system, the more people claim to be sick.

Therefore, this mechanism that feeds back the perception of diseases in the face of normal reactions during daily adversities is based on assuming that there are no healthy people, only undiagnosed sick people (Orueta et al., 2011), given that in some way, at some point or another, we would all fit into some diagnostic category.

What do we understand by health and happiness?

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health no longer as the absence of disease, but as the achievement of absolute well-being, which in some way ensures the establishment of this extreme pathologization of discomfort, in addition to a search for immediate happiness and an excessive consumption of sedative drugs that prevent us from having to endure small doses of suffering.

This is due to unattainable place where the foundations of the health standard for human beings are laid, whose natural condition is variability in mood and causes anything that is not perceived as “absolute well-being” to be considered “pathological”.

However, the problem is not in seeking happiness or not, it is that they have already taught us where to find it, and we, without questioning anything at all, have believed it. Consumption, advances in technology and science and individualism are those three great paths that according to our society we must follow to find happiness (Lipovetsky and Charles, 2006). All three are part of the material and are intertwined with each other, being at the same time, small portions of intermittent happiness and unhappiness.

On the one hand, they offer us moments of comfort and pleasure, and on the other, they make us feel restless and uneasy. For example, these allow us to access pain relief, privileged purchases or useful technological advances, but at the same time At the same time, they make us want more and more and feel that it is never enough, thus generating feelings of dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

Therefore, buying in the absence of need as a method of evasion, lacking a critical approach to medical science and becoming more individualistic, demanding and sensitive to frustration, has turned us into consumers who are sometimes happy, but always dissatisfied.

• You may be interested in: "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): principles and characteristics"

An excess of medicalization

The field of mental health is a good example of everything discussed above. In this area, despite recent efforts to reverse this situation, a biological perspective has been and is being abused for the treatment of human “discomfort”.

This leads to excessive medicalization as a means to combat "problems" which are actually part of the normal fluctuations of life, providing immediate, if fleeting well-being. In this way, we are losing autonomy, getting used to taking a passive attitude towards problems.

Thus, perceiving pain, restlessness or anxiety as diseases allows us to label them and, consequently, to have provision of a treatment, that is, a solution that is found abroad and that, therefore, does not involve us directly. As Conrad said in 2007, this is a way to transform human conditions into treatable diseases, which in this case feeds back that science and money go hand in hand and that, therefore, this discipline ends up being a company with economic purposes (Smith, 2005).

Nowadays, as a general rule, the treatment that is sought before the "disease" arrives is usually reduced to drugs, and these act more like a “float” than a “rescue boat” when in reality what we need is to familiarize ourselves with cold water and learn to to swim. In the end, alleviating the consequences of a problem makes it more bearable and bearable, but does not make it disappear, but it helps to momentarily forget that such a problem exists.

For example, it will be much easier to think that a child is unruly and disobedient because they have Attention Deficit Disorder. (ADHD) than to think that such behavioral agitation is due to dysfunctional family dynamics (Talarn, Rigat & Carbonell, 2011). Then, the solution to a symptom perhaps given more by a family problem than by a disorder, will be found in a amphetamine drug and not in the questioning of the beliefs that to this day have guided their behavior as fathers.

New therapeutic perspectives

Definitely, as a society we should understand uncertainty and suffering as part of life to be able to return to normalize problematic situations that have already been medicalized (Perez et al, 2013), and that, in addition, could derive from the interaction between the individual and his context and history (Bianco and Figueroa, 2008). However, this is complicated as long as any regret continues to be interpreted from a medical perspective, as this is profitable on an economic and non-scientific level (Talarn et al., 2011).

Even so, it is true that this problem is beginning to become visible and therapies such as "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy" (ACT) are becoming known, whose main premise is to normalize discomfort, understanding it as a product of the human condition. It exposes how society teaches us to resist suffering that is normal, and how this resistance can generate true pathological suffering.

Its objective, then, is to get rid of the avoidant and destructive pattern generated by "the culture of feeling well ”that leads us to avoid pain that is part of our life cycle and helps us grow (Soriano y Salas, 2006).

In my opinion, the visibility of this type of therapy is urgent, since it is difficult for us to open our eyes if it is still beneficial to make us believe that the solution is to close them. So we should support the growth of this new philosophy, because as long as we continue to be taught to be treatable patients, we will continue to be prepared to consume and not to take an active attitude to conflict situations in life (Lobo, 2006).