Modern medicine is genuinely miraculous in many of its capacities and genuinely harmful in others. The category of harm caused by medical treatment itself — iatrogenic harm — is one of the most under-discussed parts of healthcare, partly because acknowledging it conflicts with the institution’s necessary trust-building, and partly because individual patients rarely have the information to recognize when treatment is the problem. A more honest conversation would acknowledge that some treatments, even when correctly prescribed, leave patients worse off than they would have been with watchful waiting.
The categories of treatment-caused harm
Iatrogenic harm comes in several flavors. Direct adverse drug events — known side effects occurring at expected rates — affect a meaningful share of patients on chronic medications, particularly older adults on multiple drugs simultaneously. Drug interactions, more common as polypharmacy rises, produce effects that neither prescribing physician anticipates. Surgical complications, even from technically successful operations, leave some patients with chronic pain, infection, or functional loss. Beyond the direct categories, there’s overdiagnosis: detecting conditions that would never have caused symptoms, then treating them with interventions that have real costs. Studies of certain cancer screening programs, including some thyroid and prostate screenings, have found that significant fractions of detected cases would never have progressed, while treatment-related morbidity is substantial.
Why the system underweights this
Healthcare systems are structurally biased toward action. Doing something is reimbursed; not doing something isn’t. Patients who arrive seeking care rarely accept “let’s wait and see” as a satisfying answer, and physicians who recommend it face higher liability risk than those who prescribe or operate. The doctrine of informed consent technically requires disclosing risks, but in practice the conversation often understates the probability or severity of harm and overstates the certainty of benefit. Drug labels list side effects in print so dense they functionally communicate nothing. By the time a patient experiences a treatment-caused harm, the chain of decisions that produced it is hard to retrace, and attribution is often contested. The Choosing Wisely campaign, launched in 2012, identified hundreds of commonly performed tests and treatments where evidence suggests the harms outweigh the benefits — and uptake of its recommendations has been modest.
How patients can think about it
The useful patient posture isn’t refusal — it’s interrogation. Before agreeing to a non-emergency intervention, the questions worth asking include: What’s the expected benefit, in absolute rather than relative terms? What’s the rate and severity of side effects in patients like me? What happens if I do nothing for now and reassess in a defined period? Is this intervention recommended in current evidence-based guidelines for my specific situation, or is it institutional habit? A physician who answers these questions clearly and without defensiveness is generally a better partner than one who treats the questions as challenges to authority. Second opinions, particularly for elective procedures and chronic-medication starts, catch a measurable share of overtreatment.
Bottom line
Treatment is sometimes worse than the disease — not most of the time, but often enough that pretending otherwise is its own kind of harm. The mature framing of medicine acknowledges both its enormous benefits and its real costs, and gives patients the information to weigh them.
Leave a Reply