In Laura Emdal Navne’s research paper, “Making Sense of New Disease Categories – Naming, Specialising, and Serialising in Genomic Medicine,” she elaborated on the naming of medication and its impact on patient diagnosis. Ms. Navne’s investigation contradicted the viewpoint of geneticist Esther. Esther pushed for illness serialization, similar to describing a car license plate, increasing patients’ sense of identity. She stated that renaming diseases and serializing them could help patients have a more individualized experience. Ms. Navne, on the other hand, raised interesting points about the unexpected consequences of this preciseness in the scientific community on the social and emotional aspects of patients’ lives.
Ms. Navne voiced concern about the possibility of misunderstanding and the confusion caused by using serialized names for diseases. While these names can help identify genetic differences and specific features of the medicine, the broader meanings of these terms might result in moral separation. Patients and their families may use these detachable labels to avoid moral classification and identification with their diseases.
Navne, for example, emphasized that children with developmental impairments may experience judgment and shame. Parents who struggle with detached terms may be mistakenly labeled as careless, affecting both the child’s self-esteem and the social dynamics of the household.
This research encourages the discussion about the balance between scientific precision and humanistic aspects of healthcare. As we discuss the developing world of genetic medicine, it is important to understand the broader risks associated with illness labeling and serialization to avoid burdening patients and their families with unwarranted social judgments and misconceptions.
Anthrofusion 
Leave a comment