Modern tools — genetic testing, high-resolution imaging — let us identify thousands of conditions with remarkable precision. But there's a fair question underneath the progress: is our drive to put a name on every symptom sometimes making us sicker? Neurologist Dr. Suzanne O'Sullivan argues, in her book The Age of Diagnosis, that medicine has an over-diagnosis problem.
Over-diagnosis means correctly identifying a condition that would never have caused symptoms or harm if it had gone undetected. It's different from misdiagnosis (a wrong diagnosis) or a false positive (a harmless abnormal result). A classic example is imaging that finds a tiny, slow-growing cancer that would never have progressed — yet leads to stressful, risky treatment.
Over-diagnosis isn't harmless. It can bring psychological stress, unnecessary treatments (with their own side effects and complications), stigma and identity effects — especially in children — and a drain on resources that could go to people with urgent needs.
The alternative isn't to stop testing — it's to test and label more thoughtfully: build a real doctor–patient relationship, use watchful waiting for mild or uncertain findings, share decisions honestly, and re-examine screening that doesn't clearly improve outcomes. O'Sullivan is not anti-progress; her point is that innovation should be paired with humility about uncertainty.
Our ability to diagnose has, in some ways, outpaced our understanding of what a diagnosis means. Sometimes the healthiest choice is less testing and more conversation.
This article summarizes a published argument and is for general educational purposes only; it is not medical advice. Decisions about testing and treatment should be made with your own licensed provider.