Page contents not supported in other languages.

Iatrogenic changes also seen in cervical smears.

Iatrogenic changes are also seen within cervical smear patterns - they can be brought about by IUCD use, OCP (Oral Contraceptive Pill), Tamoxifen, Surgery, Radiation treatment, HRT, abalation, chemo, and DES exposure in utero (Diethylstilbestrol).194.176.105.132 (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Sandra Richards CSci (Biomedical scientist - cytology UK.[reply]

Side effects

WHY do medicines have side effects? What decides whether you GET a side effect, e.g. akathisia? I ask because you don't always get the side effects, like akathisia. Not sure if I'd ask this here, though. Pubserv (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Be careful to make sure that you aren't asking for medical diagnosis, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is watching this article?

Some of the sources here seem older than the current sources on the issue. Is anyone watching this page who is familiar with the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources for medical topics? It seems like this article still needs some more fact-checking. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Oreo Priest talk 03:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I'll have to dig for sources on this, but this article looks like a good place to add some updated sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move Iatrogenesis → Medical harm

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy procedural close - this should be an AfD and merge proposal, not a move proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Iatrogenesis → Medical harm – The word "iatrogenesis" is not a common term. There is no common term or phrase for the concept. The article on medical harm covers the same topic.

An alternative could be to name Iatrogenesis as "Medical harm caused by health care" because it expresses the totality of the concept and builds from two existing Wikipedia articles, medical harm and health care. Despite the origin of the term in referring to a physician, the literature on iatrogenesis refers to the spectrum of treatment and includes subtopics like hospital-acquired infection. While in the Greek term "iatrogenesis" may not include a "hospital-acquired infection", in the medical literature, such topics are included as iatrogensis. "Medical harm caused by health care" is a type of medical harm, but exclusive of other types of medical harm such as medical debt, which I do not think is discussed in the context of iatrogenesis. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd leave it as is. According to our article the term "medical harm" includes more than just iatrogenic conditions and was first used in the literature in the 1990s. Iatrogenesis as a term goes way back. Checking Google Iatrogenesis gets 73,000 hits, "medical harm" with the quotes, i.e. as a single term, gets 80,000. Of course without the quotes, a medical harm search gives 80,000,000 results, but those are pages where the terms "medical" and "harm" appear anywhere on the page, separated or not, in whatever order. So in short, there's no particular reason to merge them. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural close both iatrogenesis and medical harm are separate articles, therefore, the nomination does not appear to be a move request at all. A deletion request is required to replace one by the other via WP:AfD. If this is a merge request, you are using the wrong process, isntead use WP:PM. If you want to redirect one to the other, you can do that by WP:BOLD editing. If you want to discuss redirecting one article to the other I suggest you change this to an WP:RFC. If you want to displace medical harm to a different location to allow iatrogensis to replace it, then you've got a malformed multimove request, and are lacking a target for the move of medical harm. In consideration of what appears to be the rationale provided, this should be converted to an RFC. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, as you say, this nomination is not a move request at all and what I was proposing was an AfD and merge. I am closing this as I was the nominator and everyone agrees that the move should not happen. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I find consensus amongst parties for JonRichfield's proposal in section #Merge of Iatrogenesis and Medical error Part II:
Proposal detail
  • Make a collection of all terms associated with such concepts related to medical circumstances, actions and outcomes.
  • Ensure that all such terms are acceptably represented in Wiktionary and cross-linked with WP
  • Create a redir for each term, or in special cases a disambig page if such do not exist already
  • Create a totally new article, the target for the redirs, partly comprising existing text, in which all the relevantly distinguished concepts are defined and discussed, and in which those for which specific terms can be allocated are properly defined.
  • Because many of the existing terms are vaguely and arbitrarily defined, the article might have to be bold in the face of WP guidelines and popular usage, but that need not entail the worst possible end of everything; in the light of future developments future editors may be bold in turn. It is called progress.
  • Structure the article with care, so that readers need only read the lede plus the table of contents to see what to read when they only really wanted to ask about one or two terms.
As mentioned in that discussion, the best way forward is probably to start a workshop about implementing that proposal at WT:MED. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Difference between iatrogenesis and medical harm?

Blacksun1942 as you pointed out, the article on medical harm said that it included more harms than iatrogenic illness. However, I removed that statement as it was unsourced. Something that comes to mind is medical debt, which is a fairly new concept as only recently have people been able to get huge lines of credit in some places for health care which they cannot afford. However, I am not sure whether that cannot be termed "iatrogenesis", as it seems to be a problem originating from the doctor or a side effect of treatment.

What do you have in mind as the difference between iatrogenesis and medical harm? What material belongs in one article but not the other? Where do these articles not overlap?

I recognize that I have no source saying that the two are the same, but any source describing either of these terms seems to talk about the same concepts. The articles seem to have a lot of overlapping content, and perhaps it could overlap entirely. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A layman term for iatrogenesis

Smallbones perhaps there is 2000 years of precedent for using the term iatrogenesis, and undoubtedly the term is still used a lot. However, I wonder if a lot of popular media is describing iatrogenesis without using that term, and if layman sources describe it in one way and academics in another. Perhaps the name iatrogenesis is the best name for the article, but is there a layman term for this concept?

When I do a search engine query for iatrogenesis, I get a list of dictionary sites in return which leads me to believe that people do not know the meaning of this term. Do you see something other than this? Similarly some time ago, I proposed a change from "nosocomial infection" to hospital-acquired infection, just because I expected that the userbase of Wikipedia was more likely to be worried about a consumer infection experience rather than want professional insight with technical terms on managing the health care of their own patients.

Is it your position that you anticipate that Wikipedia's readers are better served with the term from academic literature, or do you just prefer that term because you find no minimal argument for moving it? I doubt I can find any term more popular than "iatrogeneis", however if you could be persuaded, I might be able to make some argument that a range of layman terms collectively discuss this topic with various terms and with popularity beyond the single term "iatrogenesis" alone.

I do not need a comment yet - right now I am still wondering if medical harm is iatrogenesis, or what the layman term for iatrogenesis might be. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw this on our article alerts system (for a move) and will duck in quickly. I would support a merge with medical harm for the same reason that you moved the article to hospital-acquired infection above. I think the relevant policy is probably WP:COMMONNAME and that the name 'medical harm' is a lot easier to understand for the majority of readers than the unfamiliar and, in my experience, roughly synonymous term 'iatrogenic harm'. In addition, medical harm also seems to be the focus of this article. --LT910001 (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page as Iatrogenesis. That's the correct term for it. Lay people can manage medical terms. Just because they don't have a medical degree doesn't mean they aren't capable of understanding. "Medical harm" should be merged here as it is the same thing. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between the two articles. I think my vote would be for a single article named Medical harm. TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluerasberry, I understand why you want to find a more reader friendly term, but 'medical harm' doesn't appear to be it. I suggest medical error and a merge with that article, using "medical error" as the title. "Medical error" gets a high return on Google and is more likely to be searched by the average reader. The use of 'error' is common in medicine, such as 'medication error,' 'documentation error,' etc. Hope this helps. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SW3 5DL There are two questions here. One is whether there is a layman term for iatrogenesis and the other is whether iatrogenesis and medical harm should be merged. Medical error and iatrogenesis are not the same, because iatrogenic problems are almost never the result of medical error. Things like side effects drugs or surgery recovery time, for example, are not he result of errors but are still both medical harm and iatrogenic harm. You can see these concepts are not already in the medical error article, but are in the medical harm and iatrogenesis articles. Your first proposal, merging medical harm to iatrogenesis, seems to me to be the most policy-compliant outcome if in fact medical harm and iatrogenesis are the same, but I am not sure that they are. I wanted to see if anyone could name a difference between these two concepts. I have been unable to find any source which equates these concepts. What difference do you see between the content of the article iatrogenesis and medical harm? Are you sure about medical error being the same, or have my counterexamples led you to reconsider? I am confused about all of this myself. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bluerasberry Medical error and Iatrogenesis are the same at least they were at my grad school. They are preventable medical errors. Sentinel events are also preventable. Medication errors are preventable. Surgical errors are preventable. Protocols are in place for a purpose. When protocols are not followed, error is the result. What is not the same is Medical harm, an article that is written as POV essay with sources that don't really support some of those claims. You are looking for a common term for Iatrogenesis, and medical error is it. That would be a good merge and it will make for a nice index in search engines. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SW3 5DL Yes, perhaps Iatrogenesis and medical error are the same, and medical harm is something different. I commented in the thread at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical harm. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Iatrogenesis is the correct term, and Wikipedia should use the correct term. The Medical harm article does seem like a POV essay, with phrases like "millions killed, harmed or bankrupted." I cannot personally be sure that "medical harm" is an established term at all; the article leaves open the possibility that it is a term used by only a small group. I was not familiar with the term and my first thought was that it referred to deliberate harm.
This article covers essentially the same causes of harm, but more neutrally. It also includes a critical section making it clear why iatrogenetic deaths are not always the result of medical error, giving an example of a case where a patient has a 100% chance of cardiovascular death if they are not administered surgery with a 75% risk of iatrogenic death. The separate article Medical error describes the subset of iatrogenic deaths that are caused by negligence. Roches (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roches I imagined that "iatrogenesis" could mean intentional harm, like expected side effects or a wound from elective surgery, but all the literature I have been able to find only talks about medical errors. Can you identify a source which uses "iatrogenesis" to mean anything other than medical error? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, I looked briefly, so far I've not found anything. I'll keep looking. Also, on your question of intentional harm, I would think that intentional harm is a criminal act, not a medical act. A wound from surgery is not intentional harm. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Iatrogenesis and medical error

In the deletion proposal for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical harm, it is being said that Iatrogenesis and Medical error are the same thing, and that "medical error" is the best layman term for "iatrogenesis". If that is so, then these articles should merge.

Supporting evidence of this presented in that discussion as provided by SW3 5DL are the following:

In these sources, medical error and iatrogenic problems seem to be equivalent. It seems that the term "iatrogenesis" was only recently popularized, and when it was, a particular doctor tried to give it a meaning more nuanced than anyone actually adopted, and it does seem to me that the common usage of iatrogenesis is to mean medical error despite some small amount of usage otherwise.

Related, the proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical harm is also suggesting that Medical harm is best understood to mean medical error/iatrogenesis.

MelanieN has said that iatrogenesis and medical error are not the same, and my initial thought was this also before seeing what SW3 5DL shared, but no distinction has yet been made to differentiate these two. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking also - there are 25 other language Wikipedias which have articles for "iatrogenesis" and 7 other Wikipedias with articles on medical error. Furthermore, the other language Wikipedias are often actually using the term "iatrogenesis", which makes me think that there is international support for this term. Still, if these concepts are the same, I support the use of "medical error" as a common name rather than iatrogenesis. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, concerning the 25 other language Wikipedias on the matter, I can tell you that the article in Bulgarian is very strange, as I have never ever heard the word while--unfortunately for the health system in Bulgaria--"medical error" is heard often. There is no article in Turkish on iatrogenesis, and in my humble opinion rightly so. The third language I speak, English, is the one where someone has proposed the merger with very solid reasoning. Which means, I am for the merger. Örümcekadam (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, they are the same same topic Bhny (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and title it "Medical error." SW3 5DL (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Just a moment... Are we really sure this is all quite that simple? For example, according to a definition proposed here [1] (in a potentially "ideal" MEDRS): An iatrogenic complication is different from an adverse event because not all iatrogenic complications are associated with suboptimal outcome, while all adverse events are associated with suboptimal outcome. Both iatrogenic complications and adverse events may or may not be the consequence of medical error. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is very complicated, but I do agree 'Iatrogenesis' is not a medical error, but can also be used to describe known harms associated with treatments. For example, treatments given where the benefit outweighs the likelihood of the harm (eg. injury associated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy). --LT910001 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE "complicated", terminology tends to make fine distinctions. But yes, I agree the page does need to make specific mention of risk-benefit analysis: ie. benefit vs. harm, as in weighing the desired therapeutic effects of a drug against its intrinsic adverse effects. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that 86's source gives definitions and differentiates the following terms: morbidity (no article for this), Complication (medicine), medical error, adverse event, harm (injury on Wikipedia?), Near miss (safety), iatrogenesis, iatrogenic complication, medical injury, and sentinel event. This source says that "iatrogenesis" is every good and bad outcome which comes from a health care intervention, but "iatrogenic complications" are the bad outcomes. The definition for harm here is especially unsatisfying to me - it seems to both expect that harm is caused by health care interventions, but then also says the term can be used to describe complications which may be totally unrelated to health care and only caused by disease. I would like for Wikipedia to sort these definitions - I will think more about this. Any other sources? LT910001 I also expected that iatrogenesis could refer to expected negative outcomes like sickness from chemotherapy but have been unable to find a source using the term in that way. Great find, 86. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found another source which differentiates harm from error, but still want to find a more authoritative and universal source than a specialty publication if I am to put this on Wikipedia. This source is useful for discussion but alone it is not reliable.
  • Sharek, Paul J.; Classen, David (2006). "The Incidence of Adverse Events and Medical Error in Pediatrics". Pediatric Clinics of North America. 53 (6): 1067–1077. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2006.09.011. ISSN 0031-3955.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is poorly defined, or it means nothing more than outcome then the article isn't even on topic. I think this is more reason to merge what we have into "Medical error". Bhny (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, "iatrogenesis" is clearly defined, and it is not synonymous with "medical error" (or "outcome"). From Jacobs et al 2008 (discussed above): ... the term iatrogenic complication is not synonymous with adverse event; nevertheless, iatrogenic complications and adverse events both do not necessarily result from medical error. In fact, many iatrogenic complications are intrinsic effects of a medical treatment, and may be unavoidable accompaniments of appropriate efficacious treatment strategies, for example, alopecia, anemia and emesis that occur secondary to chemotherapy or radiation therapy for cancer. (Fwiw, I don't think we need a separate page for iatrogenic complication.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our article isn't even about this definition, which only adds to my point. Bhny (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bhny, it is poorly defined. This appears to be getting an overthink at most and misunderstood at least. Iatrogenesis is medical error. And IP, iatrogenic complication seems to be an oxymoron. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SW3 5DL would need to provide good reliable medical sourcing to support the claim that "Iatrogenesis is medical error". (@Bhny: I'm not sure what you mean -- our article currently takes its definition from that very MEDRS.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to the query regarding the term "iatrogenic complication" (examples of usage here): this phrase would only be an oxymoron redundant if iatrogenesis were invariably unfavourable. [Adding: Not sure why it would be an "oxymoron".] (Perhaps it's worth pointing out here that even prior to the present discussion, the lead, despite being somewhat contradictory, did specify that iatrogenesis is not always unfavourable: The term 'iatrogenic' can also be used without negative connotation to describe the results of treatment; for example, scars created by surgery are said to be iatrogenic even though they do not represent improper care and may not be problematic.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated dialogue
86.128.169.211, your editing history suggests you've edited Wikipedia before. Do you have a user name? SW3 5DL (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. My identity has nothing to do with this article talk page (and I don't think it's an appropriate question to ask on Wikipedia anyway). 86.128.169.211 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Acutally, it is a legitimate question. I'm not asking your identity, I'm asking if you have a user name. You're not a first time editor. If you are using multiple accounts, that's a violation of policy. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the answer is simply NO, I am not a sock. Please desist (or, if you're seriously concerned, consult WP:SPI). 86.128.169.211 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC) [previously 86.181.64.67 (talk)] [reply]
The policy is a little more fine grained than "If you are using multiple accounts, that's a violation of policy", the policy is "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose" is not allowed. Additionally it says "To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on-wiki." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86.128.169.211, Have you edited this page with your user name? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No! I've already been clear above. Just stop now!. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The definition of "Iatrogenesis" is "the creation of additional problems or complications resulting from treatment by a physician or surgeon" 29th edition of Dorland's Medical Dictionary. So it is not the same as a "medical error" Most medical errors have no negative outcome. Some do cause iatrogenic outcomes for patients. I would support a move to "Medically caused harm" or "Medical harm" or "Harm cause by medical care". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree that the iatrogenesis=medical error claim is simply wrong. A more articulated definition of the term (see the MEDRS supporting the opening sentence of the current lead [2]) highlights also that not all iatrogenic effects are necessarily harmful. Surgical scars are an example that the lead has used for some time of an iatrogenic effect that is not usually harmful. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have to oppose this as there are other concepts - something can be a iatrogenic diagnosis without being a medical error per se. Also issues such as nosocomial infections. Also, a iatrogenic side effect (could be anything from scar from surgery to medication-related side effect) is not a "medical error" per se. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Doc James. We must always follow the usage of reliable secondary sources in choosing article titles, especially about medical topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: as you can see with terms such as "iatrogenic infection" (also called nosocomial infection) or "iatrogenic illness", an ill state of the patient is indeed included in iatrogenesis. For medical error - it is not. Further, not all iatrogenic illness can be directly related to medical error. Sometimes, it might be "bad luck" or an infection that the person you shared the same room with. Is that a medical error? That the person next to you, was, unknowingly infected with something and you got the bug? I think not. It's related to your time in the hospital, though, and as such it is included in iatrogenesis. As stated above, I support the fact that "medical error" is a subset of iatrogenesis. Coming from a non-US (non English speaking) country, I would further favor the latin term that is used in many other countries to align international wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoanonymous (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Iatrogenesis and Medical error Part II

* Comment I forbear to vote on this matter, partly because I lack authority in matters concerning medical treatment and terminology. As it stands the existing article doesn't look too bad, but there are several considerations here, including the uncomprehending errors in terminology that one encounters in lay speech (I refuse to call it "lay terminology"; it is too inconsistent and ill-informed). Professional terminology frankly is not much better in such respects, so our article(s) had better be good.

Etymology is not much justification in allocating definitions to words, being among other things capable of justifying any of large ranges of contradictory meanings, and allocated semantics also undergoing radical changes during the history of the usage of a given word. Then there is the question of which concepts are to be distinguished (eg "medical error" (either on one hand with or on the other hand without harmful consequences) as opposed to "unfortunate outcome of correct medical treatment" or "unfortunate effects after medical treatment, not necessarily as a consequence of the treatment but because of tripping under a truck on leaving the surgery"). I'll not elaborate on the range of such meanings, because you folks obviously have a lot more of them at your fingertips than I do.

Now, the thing is that many, though not all, such concepts need their distinct definitions, and there is no simple way to impose them in a way that is usable and acceptable to users of the 'pedia.

Therefore I suggest that we go beyond the proposed merges and take something like the following course of action:
* Make a collection of all terms associated with such concepts related to medical circumstances, actions and outcomes.
* Ensure that all such terms are acceptably represented in Wiktionary and cross-linked with WP
* Create a redir for each term, or in special cases a disambig page if such do not exist already
* Create a totally new article, the target for the redirs, partly comprising existing text, in which all the relevantly distinguished concepts are defined and discussed, and in which those for which specific terms can be allocated are properly defined.
* Because many of the existing terms are vaguely and arbitrarily defined, the article might have to be bold in the face of WP guidelines and popular usage, but that need not entail the worst possible end of everything; in the light of future developments future editors may be bold in turn. It is called progress.
* Structure the article with care, so that readers need only read the lede plus the table of contents to see what to read when they only really wanted to ask about one or two terms.

Naturally this leads to a big article, but at least it will be coherent, comprehensive, and if well done, comprehensible and accessible. To show willing, I can offer to help as much as anyone wishes me to do, but I do not undertake to tackle any part of the job without broad-based acceptance and encouragement. JonRichfield (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Brilliant idea. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is problematic because it leaves the current iatrogenesis / medical error articles problematic, but since they have already been problematic and are no worse than existing reliable sources which also confuse these and other terms, I see no way to address this problem other than to take a longer term view of it. I would not have proposed JonRichfield's solution myself but now that I read it, it strikes me as the best way forward that I can imagine. It is an unusual idea that I do not recall seeing used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but considering that we have so many reliable sources using terms in an unclear way, having one article to which all common terms redirect which then differentiates concepts to lesser-used technical terms which readers ought to be able to quickly find might be best in this case. I say this only because I think we cannot expect either casual readers or professionals in the field to know what terms to use when they search for nuances of this concept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I think. I agree this seems like an unusual and interesting idea. I'd like to see a good page on "Harm" in the context of medicine, which is most certainly a relevant and notable topic (cf., just for example PMID 15545678). The problem is how to get there in a balanced, NPOV way, giving appropriate coverage to the the various facets of the broad topic. Not an easy one, perhaps. From a purely technical point of view, in evidence-based medicine harm tends to be assessed in terms of adverse events. But clearly, the topic is broader, and it also has other dimensions, including perhaps the psychological, social, political, and even anthropological, inviting various theoretical positions and povs. Also, as JonRichfield and Bluerasberry note, the various pertinent terms (cf. [3]) shed light on the nuances of the subject. For instance, iatrogenesis is not an actual synonym for medical harm (or error), and harmful iatrogenic effects may be an inevitable component of some beneficial treatments. Personally, I'm also happy to see a "non-insider" (if I can use that expression) with a real interest in science and logic taking a lead like this on a broadly cultural medical topic.

    As regards the present page, I agree with Bluerasberry that work is needed. (For example, there seems to be some confusion between cause and effect.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support the idea of a medical error disambiguation page (if I am reading this right.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that they might be looking for a WP:SETINDEX, which is wikijargon for "page about all the things that are called medical harm (or whatever), but are actually separate things". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting one(s) that/those. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all so far for friendly reactions to my still vague suggestion. 86 suggested that I raise the matter on the medical project talk page, and I have no objection either to doing so myself, or to anyone else doing it instead. I am however as yet unprepared for a coherent discussion of the topic, so at first I prefer to elicit your various reactions as follows:

I disagree with the idea of tackling it as a WP:SETINDEX article because, according to the definition (which I have just now inspected) "Being of a specific type means that they share a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name. A list is only a SIA if inclusion of an item in the list is due to the name of the item..." The problem we have here is

  • a number of terms (different words or even different expressions) that, though related in the topic they deal with, do not refer to just one thing (much as in a SIA, certainly). For example, "iatrogenic" and "nosocomial" are different words with different meanings (which should disqualify them from appearing in a single SIA, as headwords anyway), but they deal with topics closely enough related in practice, that they deserve to appear together in an article such as I have in mind.
  • terms, some of which have more than one connotation, connotations that differ when used in different populations, contexts, or even subdisciplines
  • some of which even might have different definitions in such various contexts
  • so much so that what amount to similes in one discipline, might be dangerously different in another (in a different context, but as good examples, I think, I recently read that many people think "negative reinforcement" is the same as "punishment", and others think that "psychosomatic illness" means "imaginary illness or hypochondria" and so on. Sometimes the differences are between professionals and the laity, sometimes between different professionals.)

I think I may suggest however:

  • the terms should be similar enough in application and context that any coherent discussion that includes one might require to include others, or at least profit from their inclusion, either as similes, fine distinctions, stark contrasts, or even flat opposites. Any, or at least most, of the terms appearing in the discussion as "headwords", or at any rate theme concepts, should be reasonably defined, distinguished, and discussed sufficiently for informal clarity. I should guess that the level of detail and depth might be at about the level of treatment to be expected in the lede of an article on such a term. Certainly at least some of the terms would require full, reasonably formal, treatment elsewhere, probably in their own articles, and this overview article should of course be properly linked to such articles with "See main article at..." etc.
  • in this last-instanced respect this overview article would differ from a disambiguation in that disambiguations are supposed not to tell the reader anything but that there are articles that deal with blahdeblah, but regulations discourage any discussion. There appear to be WP editors specialising in delousing disambiguation articles in case they say anything helpful to the user, and of course we couldn't have that! However, as Cas Liber suggests, this article would chillingly suggest the abomination of a disambiguation that actually makes a theme of the relationships of the listed concepts and their constructive usages, as well as (where appropriate) supplying links to the main articles for individual terms. Believe me, the medical field is not the only one that could benefit from such articles.

I am however in doubt about what to call such an article type (topic scaffolding article??) and how to format it. A list format as in a WP:SETINDEX article, seems to me possible in some cases, but does not strike me as necessarily required. I suspect it might be best to have someone literate compose the article experimentally, and discuss the format afterwards. I am sure that other topics could benefit once a suitable convention emerged. As I said, I'd be willing to assist, but could not drive such an initiative. JonRichfield (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

The first paragraph of this section says: "Globally it is estimated that 142,000 people died in 2013"

Then the last one says: " iatrogenesis may cause as many as 225,000 deaths per year in the United States"

How are US cases more than world cases? Please correct.

Paul Siraisi (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening citation

From the opening paragraph: "In 2013, an estimated 142,000 persons died from adverse effects of medical treatment, up from an estimated 94,000 in 1990."

This makes it sound like medicine is getting worse and worse. It is not a meaningful number without the context of how many medical treatments are done in total. I would say that this sentence is more disinformation than information. 173.174.45.155 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iatrogenesis in the psychotherapy-psychiatric setting -- seeking opinions of WP: OOS

Would harm in the therapeutic/psychiatric-therapeutic setting fall under the Psychiatry section of this article? One example I am thinking of is treating a mental disorder like OCD with the wrong type of psychotherapy, and so the obsessions and compulsions get worse. This is a common error.

There is a lot of information on this sort of psychotherapeutic error and harm but I am unsure if it belongs within the scope of this article. There is an entire area of study within psychology on iatrogenesis with regard to transference as well, does that belong here? An example of that is mismanaging psychotherapy or psychiatric boundaries so that the relationship becomes dual and unbalanced. And if so, does it fall under psychiatry or rather, another category called psychology or psychotherapy?

If these topics don't belong here, I'd appreciate some thoughts on where anybody feels they would fit better. This doesn't seem to be a good fit. I am considering adding the information here as well, since the topic is extremely limited. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 14:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iatrogenesis