Article Text
Abstract
Overdiagnosis is an emerging problem in health policy and practice: we address its definition and ethical implications. We argue that the definition of overdiagnosis should be expressed at the level of populations. Consider a condition prevalent in a population, customarily labelled with diagnosis A. We propose that overdiagnosis is occurring in respect of that condition in that population when (1) the condition is being identified and labelled with diagnosis A in that population (consequent interventions may also be offered); (2) this identification and labelling would be accepted as correct in a relevant professional community; but (3) the resulting label and/or intervention carries an unfavourable balance between benefits and harms. We identify challenges in determining and weighting relevant harms, then propose three central ethical considerations in overdiagnosis: the extent of harm done, whether harm is avoidable and whether the primary goal of the actor/s concerned is to benefit themselves or the patient, citizen or society. This distinguishes predatory (avoidable, self-benefiting), misdirected (avoidable, other-benefiting) and tragic (unavoidable, other-benefiting) overdiagnosis; the degree of harm moderates the justifiability of each type. We end with four normative challenges: (1) methods for adjudicating between professional standards and identifying relevant harms and benefits should be procedurally just; (2) individuals, organisations and states are differently responsible for addressing overdiagnosis; (3) overdiagnosis is a matter for distributive justice: the burdens of both overdiagnosis and its prevention could fall on the least-well-off; and (4) communicating about overdiagnosis risks harming those unaware that they may have been overdiagnosed. These challenges will need to be addressed as the field develops.
- Public Health Ethics
- Philosophy of Medicine
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter Follow Stacy Carter at @stacymcarter
Contributors SMC led the analysis and writing. All four authors contributed to the development of the argument, through a collaborative, iterative process.
Funding National Health and Medical Research Council (1023197) and (1032963).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Response
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Casting the net too wide on overdiagnosis: benefits, burdens and non-harmful disease
- Defining and evaluating overdiagnosis
- A definition and ethical evaluation of overdiagnosis: response to commentaries
- Overdiagnosis across medical disciplines: a scoping review
- Overdiagnosis in primary care: framing the problem and finding solutions
- The challenge of overdiagnosis begins with its definition
- Survey of public definitions of the term ‘overdiagnosis’ in the UK
- Effects of awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis among women with screen-detected or incidentally found breast cancer: a qualitative interview study
- Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods
- The historical rise of “overdiagnosis”—an essay by Scott Podolsky