IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v55y2002i7p1267-1278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Chicken or the egg? The biological-psychological controversy surrounding hyperemesis gravidarum

Author

Listed:
  • Munch, Shari

Abstract

Women's somatic complaints are more likely to be labeled by physicians and other health care professionals as psychologically based when the condition has an obscure etiology. Perhaps because of this, there are a number of medical conditions which have been underinvestigated and where erroneous assumptions about them exist. Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG)--severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy--is an example of such an illness. HG remains a puzzling condition for both physicians and patients because there is no known cause or cure. By its very nature, HG has a clearly established biological cause--pregnancy. Yet, because the exact causal pathophysiological mechanism is unknown, the organicity of the pregnant state is either minimized or ignored. This paper examines how HG is characterized in the literature and the empirical basis for psychogenesis. Analysis of the literature reveals a tension in the discourse such that both biologic and psychologic approaches to HG have existed in parallel tracks throughout history. Still, results support that sociocultural factors rather than scientific evidence have shaped the overarching and predominant illness paradigm of psychogenesis. Implications for women's health care and HG, in particular, are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Munch, Shari, 2002. "Chicken or the egg? The biological-psychological controversy surrounding hyperemesis gravidarum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 1267-1278, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:7:p:1267-1278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00239-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:7:p:1267-1278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.