‘What I see in clinic is never a set of labels’: are we in danger of overdiagnosing mental illness?

Dr. Lucy Foulkes, a prominent academic psychologist and practicing clinician, published a critical editorial in London this week addressing the growing crisis of overdiagnosis in the mental health field. Through her analysis of modern clinical practices, Foulkes argues that the current societal trend of pathologizing normal human responses to trauma and distress—such as the restlessness and flashbacks following a near-death experience—is often doing more harm than good. The intervention comes at a time when therapeutic language has moved from specialized clinics into the everyday lexicon of the general public, leading to a concern that medical labels are being used as substitutes for understanding complex human experiences. The core of the argument rests on the observation that while clinical labels were originally intended to help patients access specific treatments and validate their suffering, they are now frequently used to categorize reactions that are fundamentally human rather than pathological. Foulkes describes the case of an individual suffering from post-traumatic symptoms after a shooting, noting that while the symptoms are severe, the focus on the diagnosis often overshadows the individual's unique story and the natural fragility of life. By framing these experiences strictly as illnesses, the medical community may be inadvertently stripping patients of their agency and narrowing the focus of recovery to symptom management rather than holistic healing. Furthermore, the article highlights a significant shift in how younger generations perceive their emotional well-being, often adopting clinical terminology to describe standard emotional fluctuations. This "concept creep" has resulted in a surge of self-diagnoses and a heightened demand for professional services that are already stretched thin. Industry experts suggest that the expansion of diagnostic criteria has lowered the threshold for what is considered a mental disorder, potentially diverting resources away from those with the most severe psychiatric needs while pathologizing the ordinary struggles of life. Ultimately, the discussion serves as a call to action for healthcare providers and the public to reconsider the utility of the diagnostic model. Foulkes advocates for a more nuanced approach in the clinic—one that views patients as individuals with complex histories rather than a collection of symptoms or labels. By striking a balance between recognizing genuine mental illness and acknowledging the natural hardships of the human condition, the medical community can better serve patients without the unintended consequences of lifelong medicalization.