With recent advancements in medical technology, one would believe that more tests and earlier diagnosis simply mean better health. But what if our quest to detect diseases early is actually hurting us more than it is helping us?
Consultant neurologist Dr Suzanne O’Sullivan asserts that we now face a new kind of health crisis. This crisis is brought about not by hidden disease. It is caused by overdiagnosis. It is not doctors being wrong. It is diagnosing illness that will never have hurt anyone. In some cases, the illness may never have appeared at all.
When Diagnosis Doesn’t Help
Dr O’Sullivan reflects on her 30 years of medical practice and growing dismay at the trend towards overdiagnosis. She speaks of patients like Stephanie and her teenage daughter Abigail. Stephanie had epilepsy and wanted an explanation; Abigail, though, was a healthy teenager. After screening them genetically, Dr O’Sullivan informed Abigail she had a progressive neurological disease. The condition hadn’t yet appeared.
The diagnosis was technically true. It had no therapy or cure. However, it created anxiety over an eventual future that is unlikely ever to materialize. Abigail had changed from optimal health to the ominous diagnosis of serious disease. And that, Dr O’Sullivan insists, is the quiet, insidious power of diagnosis. It may alter our self-concepts. It can affect our sense of self-body even when no treatment is necessary.
Unintended Consequences
In another case, a young woman named Darcie had accumulated multiple diagnoses over the years. She was diagnosed with epilepsy, ADHD, and then autism. These diagnoses were given despite her having relatively minor or anxiety-based symptoms. The incessant medicalisation of her day-to-day experience rendered her iller, rather than healthier. And maybe even more importantly, it prompted her to see herself solely as ill.
This is not an unusual trend. More children are being diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders than ever before today. But mental illness issues in adolescents still rise. Clearly, more diagnoses have not resulted in better outcomes.
The Price of Catching “Illnesses” Early
What’s causing this trend, then? It is a mix of factors. These include increased public awareness and more advanced technology. Pharmaceutical company advertising also plays a role. Additionally, the rise of social media pathologizes normal emotions and behaviors.
Genetic testing and high-tech scans can now detect small abnormalities years before symptoms ever arise. But is it helpful to know you may fall ill in 30 years’ time? In Dr O’Sullivan’s view, early diagnosis without treatment can generate fear, anxiety, and unnecessary medical interventions.
Consider cancer, for instance. We praise early detection. However, early detection of many cancers would never have resulted in harm. Patients are treated for them nonetheless. And with disorders like Parkinson’s, now diagnosed before symptoms begin, early information might merely prolong a life lived with Parkinson’s. There is no cure, so it doesn’t lead to a life without it.
The Nocebo Effect and the Weight of Labels
Medical labels also have psychological consequences. Being told you are sick, even if you don’t know anything is wrong, can make people feel and act sick. This is called the “nocebo” effect: the negative opposite of the placebo. A diagnosis, while sometimes helpful, can validate a person’s notion that they are in pieces. This can create a vicious cycle of stress, dependence on healthcare, and reduced quality of life.
What Needs to Change?
Dr O’Sullivan is not calling for diagnosis to be prohibited — far from it. She is, however, demanding a more cautious, patient-centred approach. Tests must be employed only when they can actually do good. Practitioners must be prepared to withdraw diagnoses when they no longer serve the patient.
Lastly, medicine must be about healing suffering, not just labeling it. In an increasingly label- and early-diagnosis-obsessed culture, we must ask: Are we making folks healthier — or just more anxious?
Analysis: Labelling, Social Construction, and the Meaning of Diagnosis
Dr. O’Sullivan’s concerns about overdiagnosis and the psychological impact of medical labels can be further understood. This is achieved through sociological theories, particularly Social Action Theory. Social Action Theory was developed by Max Weber. It was expanded upon by later interpretivist sociologists. This theory emphasises how individual meanings and social interactions shape our understanding of reality. This includes health and illness.
Labelling Theory, a key concept in interpretivist sociology, is significant. It argues that illness is not just a biological fact. Illness is also a socially constructed identity. This post on Social Action Theory highlights the influence of labeling on how we define and react to health conditions. Our reactions are influenced by how others label us. Medical professionals especially influence this labeling. When a person is diagnosed, they are given a new social identity: “patient,” “sick,” or “at risk.” This label can profoundly influence how they see themselves. It can also affect how others treat them. This happens regardless of whether they actually feel unwell.
Dr. O’Sullivan’s cases of Abigail and Darcie show this in practice. The diagnosis—sometimes given for a condition that may never even manifest—can reshape a person’s self-concept and daily life. This mirrors what labelling theorists like Howard Becker describe: a person becomes their label. The label can bring about real changes in behaviour, relationships, and even physical well-being (as seen with the “nocebo effect”).
Furthermore, the social construction of illness means that what counts as “sick” or “well” is partly decided by social norms. Medical definitions and cultural attitudes also play a role. These criteria change over time and differ between societies. The explosion in neurodevelopmental and mental health diagnoses reflects changing definitions. It shows greater awareness. It also demonstrates how new categories of illness are created and legitimised socially, not just medically.
Social Action Theory suggests we should pay attention to the meanings that individuals attach to health, symptoms, and diagnosis. Medical professionals, under pressure from technology, social media, and pharmaceutical interests, may focus on early detection and labelling. But for patients, the meaning of a diagnosis may be less about biological reality. It may be more about how it changes their identity, relationships, and future expectations.
In summary: Dr. O’Sullivan’s critique supports the sociological view that diagnosis is not just a technical act but a social process. Labelling can have unintended consequences, turning healthy people into patients and creating anxiety where none may have existed. From a Social Action Theory perspective, the solution is not to reject diagnosis. Instead, it should be applied thoughtfully. Recognising that the meanings attached to illness are as important as the medical facts themselves is crucial.
Leave a Reply