This is great context. Though there is a relevant difference: in this case the WHO’s recognition of nociplastic pain was triggered by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) recognizing it. The IASP is the leading global professional organization in pain research and medicine.
The 2019 update add many codes that orthodox Western medicine disagrees with.
If someone wants Chinese medicine codes they got it in the update. Ayurveda got codes. Activists for Chronic Lyme got their codes as well.
The philosophy of that update seemed to be “If there anything that doctors want to diagnose, it should get a code so that it can go into standardized electronic health records.”
This is great context. Though there is a relevant difference: in this case the WHO’s recognition of nociplastic pain was triggered by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) recognizing it. The IASP is the leading global professional organization in pain research and medicine.
I’ve added a footnote to clarify this.
The IASP’s recognition of nociplastic pain was formed by a task force assembled for this purpose, which also changed the established official definition of the general concept of pain itself. https://www.iasp-pain.org/PublicationsNews/NewsDetail.aspx?ItemNumber=6862 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00392-5/abstract
The 2019 update add many codes that orthodox Western medicine disagrees with.
If someone wants Chinese medicine codes they got it in the update. Ayurveda got codes. Activists for Chronic Lyme got their codes as well.
The philosophy of that update seemed to be “If there anything that doctors want to diagnose, it should get a code so that it can go into standardized electronic health records.”