Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Essay

Disease as idea

Dorian Deshauer
CMAJ September 27, 2005 173 (7) 790-791; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.050942
Dorian Deshauer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figure

Figure.

Lovers and livers: disease concepts in history Jacalyn Duffin, Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2005 299 pp $27.50 ISBN 0-8020-3805-0

Lovers and Livers is a compilation of lectures delivered in 2002 by Jacalyn Duffin, a hematologist and prolific medical historian based at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont. Through these lectures, she encourages us to look at diseases as “ideas influenced by the tastes and preoccupations of society.” Duffin argues that it is “only when we already entertain cultural doubt about a trait or a behaviour” that we construe it as pathological and look to material causes to corroborate this view. To explore the “priority of culture over biology,” Duffin proposes that vestiges of an old condition, lovesickness, may still affect the way we talk about illnesses such as erotomania, HIV and hepatitis C.

Understanding how illness, disease and culture are related to one another is the central problem in the emerging literature of “disease construction.” The descriptive language of medicine is in constant flux, as it is recalibrated from generation to generation. Philosophical traditions cohabit this historical space in a beneficial exchange of ideas. For example, Descartes' Passions of the Soul can be read as a synthesis of Renaissance medical concepts with Cartesian theory. Over time, Cartesian notions of clear and distinct ideas and mind–body dualism have undergone a number of substantial revisions. Wittgenstein talks about “family resemblances” among words instead of clear and distinct ideas, and Eleanor Rosch writes of conceptual prototypes. Mind–body dualism has been reformulated to encompass our contemporary view of consciousness. Similar transformations occurred in our concepts of truth, beauty and love. However, although philosophical and medical ideas have changed, disease construction must somehow anchor itself in an historical constant: the inevitability of human suffering.

Figure

Figure. Photo by: Fred Sebastian

Mirko Grmek, famed historian of medicine and Duffin's mentor, viewed illness concepts as groups of ideas in equilibrium at a given time, much like an assemblage of diverse organisms in a common habitat. As one way of thinking about illness falls into disuse (e.g., the concept of hysteria), another tends to take its place (e.g., multiple personality disorder). This notion has been thoroughly explored by Ian Hacking, using the pliable concepts of dissociation and multiple personality as modern reinventions of the soul. Syndromes such as these can be viewed as “containers” for many who don't fit the expected behavioural mould. Yet these containers are not pure abstractions. For each illness concept, there are real people experiencing what Susan Sontag referred to as our “dual citizenship” in the realms of both sickness and health.1

The medical link between hepatitis and sex has been discussed in the scientific literature.2 In her book, Duffin pairs the historical malady of lovesickness with a contemporary disease, infectious hepatitis.

She traces lovesickness back to ancient Egyptian and Greek love poems, in which the condition could prove fatal — as in the legend of Sappho plunging to her death over unrequited love. In medieval times, Persian doctors were likely the first to medicalize lovesickness, prescribing sex cures. Anecdotes from Renaissance medical writers and painters support the idea of love's ongoing power to cause illnesses with symptoms of melancholy, anorexia and even mania or suicide. After the Inquisition, sex cures may have fallen out of favour, and writers including Voltaire, Swift and Goethe linked lovesickness with venereal disease. Lovesickness was eventually divided into categories such as masturbation, homosexuality and pedophilia. Sexual perversity occupied Romantic fictional writers, while “[p]opular images of lovesick women … [became] yet another tool of misogynist social control.” Technological developments in surgery allowed procedures to cure a host of female complaints by ovariectomy, while doctors expanded their disease vocabulary to include homosexuality. In the 20th century, sex was demystified and its endorphin-enhancing health benefits promoted. Addiction psychology reframed lovesickness as “co-dependence.” And, in the 1980s, sexually charged illness gained international prominence with HIV and the various manifestations of hepatitis C, a disease that has been shaped by our ambivalence about the “goodness of love.”

Although the liver has played a central role in medicine since antiquity, technological advances in the 19th and early 20th centuries allowed a detailed understanding of what had previously been considered jaundice. A link between blood transfusions, infectious hepatitis and HIV eventually led to highly publicized events such as the Krever inquiry. In the process, those infected with hepatitis C, identified through a blood test but otherwise experiencing no apparent illness, were medicalized, tainted with the “bad” type of infection usually reserved for drug addicts and homosexuals. Yet only half of asymptomatic cases of hepatitis C progress to a serious physiological illness. Asymptomatic hepatitis C represents an illness “caused by an invading organism and also by factors external to the patient: by the scientific discoveries; by the Krever inquiry; by journalists, politicians, lawyers, and jurists; and by the compensation packages.”

How readers regard this book will depend on their background and expectations. Philosophically, the topics mirror the Cartesian body–soul divide. For some, this may be a stretch. Is Agape (v. Eros) in ancient Greece the same as “courtly love” in the time of chivalry? Is it meaningful to juxtapose 17th-century paintings of lovesickness against 20th-century sexually transmitted diseases? At what point do sweeping generalizations usher in what Tolstoy called the “slyness of reason”? For doctors, as for their patients, human suffering is a common thread that transcends shifting medical terms and a labyrinth of philosophical theory. Sexually charged illnesses stand at a particularly vulnerable intersection between culture and biology, often colouring our relationships with patients who are sick but whose symptoms resist an easy reduction to physical causes. And Duffin's latest book can serve to stimulate discussion about the “lurid metaphors with which they have been landscaped.”1

References

  1. 1.↵
    Sontag S. Illness as metaphor and AIDS and its metaphors. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 1990. p. 4.
  2. 2.↵
    Tepper ML, Gully PR. Lovers and livers: hepatitis B as an STD. Can J Hum Sex 1997:6:2.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 173 (7)
CMAJ
Vol. 173, Issue 7
27 Sep 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Disease as idea
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Disease as idea
Dorian Deshauer
CMAJ Sep 2005, 173 (7) 790-791; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050942

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Disease as idea
Dorian Deshauer
CMAJ Sep 2005, 173 (7) 790-791; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050942
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Brand-name disease
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • 4 Main
  • The Olivieri story, take three
Show more Essay

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire