Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 193–196 | Cite as

The use of the terms ‘lifestyle medicines’ or ‘lifestyle drugs’

Article

Abstract

Aim: over the last 10 decades, ‘lifestyle medicines’ or ‘lifestyle drugs’ have been used with increasing frequency by journalists, politicians, authorities and to some extent by scientists. The objective of this paper is to analyse the quantity and quality of the use of these terms and discuss the implications associated with the labelling of indications and products as lifestyle medicines or lifestyle drugs.

Methods: The findings in this paper are based on an extensive literature review in the databases Medline, Pubmed, Embase and the two most frequently used search engines altavista.com and google.com, as well as the media database LexisNexis.

Results: In the period 1978 to August 2003, the term ‘lifestyle medicines /drugs’ has appeared 3174 times in English language media. In total, 23 different definitions are presented in the scientific literature.

Conclusions: The review of the scientific literature shows that no widely accepted definition of the terms ‘lifestyle medicines’ or ‘lifestyle drugs’ exists. Nevertheless the terms have appeared more than 3000 times in the media (2600 times since 1998), which means that in most cases, the use of the terms ‘lifestyle medicines’ or ‘lifestyle drugs’ are based on the authors’ own assumptions and values. This is problematic, not only in terms of a discourse, where no one knows what forms the basis of the discussion, but also because this at best leads to an uninformed discussion and at worst to harmful conclusions that might stigmatise and discriminate patients. Based on these findings, this paper argues that a clear, widely accepted definition of the terms ‘lifestyle medicines’ or ‘lifestyle drugs’ is essential to avoid potential misunderstandings that might lead to discrimination in the rationing of healthcare resources or stigmatisation of patients.

Discrimination Drugs Lifestyle medicines Terminology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nutton V. The rise of medicine. In: Porter R, editor. Cambridge Illustrated medicine. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996; 52–82.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gross P, Hitzler R, Horner A. Zwei Kulturen? Diagnostische und terapeutische Kompetenz im Wandel. [Two cultures: diagnostic and therapeutic competence in a state of change.] Öster Z Soziol Sonderheft Medizinsoziol 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brock D. The use of drugs for pleasure-some philosophical issues. In: Murray T, Gaylin W, Macklin R, editors. Feeling good and doing better: ethics and nontherapeutic drug use. Clifton, New Jersey: Humana Press, 1984; 83–106.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shapiro MH. The technology of perfection: performance enhancement and the control of attributes. South California Law Rev 1991; 65: 11–13.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Audran M, Gareau S, Matecki F, Durand F, Chenard C, Sicart M et al. Effects of erythropoietin administration in training athletes and possible indirect detection in doping control. Med Sci Sports Exercise 1999; 31: 639–45.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waddington I. Sport, health and drugs: a critical sociological perspective. London: Spon Press 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donohoe T, Johnson N. Foul play: drug abuse in sports. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhn C, Scott S, Wilke W. The straight facts about the most used and abused drugs from alcohol to ecstasy. New York: Norton, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sherlock K, Conner M. Patterns of ecstasy use amongst clubgoers on the UK 'dance scene'. Int J Drug Policy 1999; 10: 117–29.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Møldrup C. Den medicinerede normalitet. [Medical normality.] Gyldendal: Copenhagen 1999 [in Danish].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Møldrup C. —Fremtidens medicinsk optimeret krop. In: Balling G. editor. Homo Sapiens 2.0. Copenhagen: GAD, 2002; 105–21 [in Danish].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Møldrup C, Morgall JM. Risk Society-reconsidered in a drug context. Health, Risk Society 2001; 3: 59–74.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knudsen P, Hansen EH, Traulsen JM. Perceptions of younger woman using SSRI antidepressants-a reclassification of stigma. Int J Pharm Pract 2002; 10: 243–52.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slomka J. Playing with Propranolol. Hastings Center Report 1992; 22: 13–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Zanten MA, De Smidt JH, Kok-Van-Esterik JAE, Broekmans AW. Lifestyle drugs do not exists. A matter of use. Pharm Weekly 2001; 136: 1274–76.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Young SN. Lifestyle drugs, mood, behaviour and cognition. J Psych Neurosci 2003; 28: 87–9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilbert D. Lifestyle drugs; who will pay? Scrip report. London: PJB Publications 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walley T. Lifestyle medicines and the elderly. Drugs Aging 2002; 19: 163–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Concise Oxford Dictionary. 10th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klein R, Sturm H. Viagra: a success story for rationing? Health Affaires 2002: 21; 177–87.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lifestyle drugs: potion for growth. Internet Communication, 2003. http://www.Equitymaster.com (10 Aug. 2003).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reuters Business Insight. Lifestyle Drugs Outlook to 2007: challenges and opportunities in a high-profile growth market New Strategic Management Report. London: Reuters, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Overman S. Warning: Viagra may cause headaches for health insurers. HR Magazine 1998; Sep: 104–9.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sevon M, Murany D. Quality of life drugs: framing the issue. Internet Communication 2001. http://www.amcp.org/data/ jmcp/vol15/num3/spotlight.html (16 June 2004).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laurance J. Should self-esteem be available at NHS? Independent 2001; 9.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Go on, it's good for you. Editorial, The Economist, 6 Aug. 1998; 3.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frankel S, Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G. The limits to demand for health care. BMJ 2000; 321: 40–5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gilbert D, Walley T, New B. Lifestyle medicines. BMJ 2000; 321: 1341–4.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wick JY. Enhancing life or eradicating ugliness? Lifestyle drugs. J Manage Care Pharm 2002; 8: 15–20.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patel H. Lifestyle drugs. Caremark Clinical update 2000 (July).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bogdanovic S, Langlands B. Lifestyle drugs patient-initiated prescribing. Consultant Report 2003. Southend-on-Sea: Nicholas Hall & Company.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kole PL, Bhusari S, Thakurdesai PA. Lifestyle drugs: new avenues. Internet Communication 2003.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Atkinson T. Lifestyle drug market booming. Nat Med, 2002; 8:909.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gebhart F. Patient demand for lifestyle drugs putting R.Ph.s in a bind. Drug Topic 1999; 143: 61.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Happier, hornier, hairier. Editorial. Nat Biotechnol 2003; 21: 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social PharmacyThe Danish University of Pharmaceutical SciencesCopenhagen ØDenmark

Personalised recommendations