The Age of Diagnosis

The title is clickbait lol. Medicine adjacent literature will always hold my interest but I was worried that this was going to present an overly dismissive argument of people's suffering (and honestly picked it up to expand my worldview - one of those books if you get me) but actually, it was very well written and presented some very interesting points.

The main argument presented was essentially - people are suffering, but if their suffering is not fully understood and the diagnosis does not actually provide any benefits in understanding or treatment, does it actually do more good overall to give them a diagnosis. A multitude of different perspectives are discussed in the book, but the one I found most interesting was the case where the biological underpinnings of a diagnosis have not been understood, and so the diagnosis itself is not much more than a collection of symptoms. For the subset of these diagnoses where it's commonly perceived to be an inherent difference or just simply not recoverable, despite no scientific consensus that this is actually the case, having the diagnosis pinned to a person's identity can affect how they perceive themselves and their relationship with potential recovery.

As someone diagnosed and being treated for ADHD, I SO understand the appeals of a biological explanation, and so kinda just accepted it without digging into it too much - and to be fair, it is very much often presented as truth. Finding out from literature (not even this book lol, but it is discussed) (and also just from personal experience where things didn't quite add up) that the reality was much more complicated did feel like a bit of mourning for a loss of identity. I realised that I was starting to use it as an excuse, and regardless of what the true mechanisms for the condition is, I'd reached the point of diminishing returns of my diagnosis and it was actively stunting my growth in other areas. Either way, I'm glad that I got the diagnosis and it's helped me in many ways, but I'm also glad that I've been able to look beyond it, and I see the worry that other people may be being harmed by a well-intended but ultimately not unequivocally good-resulting simplified explanation.

Gripes about the book (because ⭐necessary⭐): clickbait title is unappetising. missells what the book is about, or maybe it's a meta 5D chess move, idk lol. Also, from some of the interviews featured in the book, it's quite clear how the author feels about the conversation. I understand that as a practicing medical professional, it must be frustrating facing people who give out (from their point of view) misinformation and endorsing medical malpractitioners. After all, especiallyas a medical professional, active harm to people must be difficult to just sit with, buuuuuuuuuttttttt maybe a more neutral viewpoint would be better for a book. That's all!