| <<Previous Unlike Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Breast Cancer is an illness that is taken very seriously by the medical community. The willingness and dedication of doctors to prevent, treat, and cure Breast Cancer is evident in the 96% survival rate for localized Breast Cancer in the United States. In fact, the CDC�s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has a current funding of $192.6 million (Program Fact Sheet, 2002). Such interest is representative of the positive attitude the medical community exhibits toward treating patients with Breast Cancer. The difference in the medical community opinion of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Breast Cancer is obvious. Breast Cancer has more funding, treatment options, and higher patient satisfaction (assuming that a survivor equals a satisfied patient). These differences cannot be accounted for by either differences in demographics (the mean patient for CFS and Breast Cancer is a middle-aged woman) or disease etiology (because common medical opinion does not favor research, not enough is known to determine a cause for CFS). The difference in attitude can, however, be attributed to the difference in nomenclature. As explained earlier, words represent concepts. The concept(s) elicited by Breast Cancer is very different from the concept(s) elicited by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, namely where each falls as either a �disease� or �illness.� The difference between �disease� and �illness� was drawn by Feinstein in 1967 and is this: ��disease� [is] a natural, though pathological (abnormal) process in the human body, whilst �illness� refers to a sufferer�s subjective experience of such pathology� (Banks and Prior, 2001). In other words, �disease� refers to the abnormal physical occurrences in the body while �illness� refers to the sufferer�s experience (symptoms) of the �disease�. The concept elicited by �cancer� (in �Breast Cancer�) is that of an abnormal pathological process inside the body. It obviously fits the definition of �disease�, which doctors can treat. The concept elicited by �syndrome� is strikingly different; the Allen Hutchinson, Chairman, and members of the CFS/ME Working Group explain: �the term �syndrome� is widely used in medicine to encompass a variable pattern of disease, whether or not the syndrome has one unique causal mechanism� (in this case, disease does not necessarily have the definition given above) (2002). Simply, the word �syndrome� elicits a concept of an incurable set of symptoms that does not necessarily have a single pathology, and possibly, has none at all. For this reason, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, in the minds of doctors, cannot be labeled a �disease� (because it has no known pathology) and, although symptoms are experienced by patients, it is not necessarily an �illness� (because there must be a known pathology to experience). This explains why so many CFS patients are diagnosed with psychiatric disorders; if there is no known pathology, then something must be wrong in the patient�s head causing the patient to experience symptoms. Since Breast Cancer elicits a feeling of a treatable disease, it is respected among doctors. However, because Chronic Fatigue Syndrome elicits a feeling of an untreatable set of symptoms, it is not respected among doctors. The nomenclature of an illness, such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, can unfairly bias the medical community for or against a particular illness. In the case of CFS, the use of the term �syndrome� unfairly biases doctors to regard it with disbelief and disrespect. Presently, there are efforts underway in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia to rename CFS and erase the bias being labeled a syndrome has caused. Taking into consideration the bias illustrated by CFS, it would be beneficial to patients and researchers to be careful and specific when naming new illnesses. Attachments and References |
 |