Book Review: A Clear-Eyed Look at the Risks of ‘Diagnosis Creep’: In “The Age of Diagnosis,” Suzanne O’Sullivan challenges some common assumptions about how we detect and treat disease (Lola Butcher,, 05.09.2025, UnDark)
O’Sullivan’s book explores another possibility: Are normal differences among individuals being diagnosed as medical conditions? By plopping modern medicine on the exam table, O’Sullivan offers a thought-provoking challenge to our common assumptions about the importance of early and accurate diagnosis. Among them, can test results be trusted as facts? Is early intervention the best way to deal with a medical problem? And fundamentally, is having a diagnosis always better than not?
“The Age of Diagnosis” reads like an update to “Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health,” a 2011 book by internist H. Gilbert Welch and two colleagues that presented compelling evidence that common conditions — hypertension, diabetes, osteoporosis, and several types of cancer — are routinely overdiagnosed.
Welch lays the blame on overdetection — screening programs, imaging scans, and genetic tests that detect abnormalities that would never progress to be problems — and O’Sullivan agrees. In her view, some responsibility lies with doctors and scientists who are seduced by technological advances that allow them to spot potential problems.
But she seems more interested in the role of patients — and parents of patients — who demand a diagnosis when life does not proceed the way they want. “An expectation of constant good health, success and a smooth transition through life is met by disappointment when it doesn’t work out that way,” she writes. “Medical explanations have become the sticking plaster we use to help us manage that disappointment.”
Diagnosis is a function of our need to feel special.
