This is a 1990 article by an expert in the field (James Christensen) who, in a Socratic dialogue style, explains why IBS, as a diagnosis, leads to a frustrating diagnostic and treatment path for many. It wasn't the original publication (1990, published in the defunct journal 'Gastroenterology International'), but a 1991 German translation. The German version can be downloaded here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Christensen-6 Translation with DeepSeek.
Heraclides, or The Physician
J. CHRISTENSEN
University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
Translated from English by S. Müller-Lissner
Heraclides: I am looking for a rare plant that one of my patients told me about. He said it is in bloom at this time, and the flower makes it easy to find. However, I have not yet found a single specimen, and I am getting tired of the search in this heat. If we sit under that tree over there, we can chat a little, and I can refresh myself from your flask if you give me a drink.
Socrates: Of course, my friend. But tell me, why is this plant so important that you are up here on the hill on such a hot afternoon, when you could be resting at home in the cool shade?
Heraclides: The patient I spoke of told me that an infusion of the root, taken with a little wine, greatly relieves his complaints, and so I was eager to get some specimens to try this treatment on others who have the same disease.
Socrates: Truly, what dedication! Now I understand why you enjoy such a reputation as a physician. You are constantly trying to learn more, even when others are resting on such an afternoon. But tell me, what is this rare disease that demands such efforts?
Heraclides: I did not say it was a rare disease. In fact, it is quite common, chronic, and rather troublesome. We physicians call it Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Perhaps you have heard of it.
Socrates: Indeed, that is probably the disease that my wife Xanthippe claims to suffer from, but I pay little attention to it. She is constantly complaining about something, and I often find it hard to give it much heed. But tell me, what is the nature of this disease? What makes the bowel irritable?
Heraclides: I do not really know. We physicians are not sure whether the bowel is irritated, or even whether it is only the bowel that causes the complaints. The symptoms strongly suggest that the bowel is irritable, but we have no real proof.
Socrates: What are these symptoms?
Heraclides: Well, mainly abdominal pain and the feeling of difficulty with bowel movements, but there are also other symptoms. I find it hard to understand it, I admit. Perhaps you, Socrates, can help me organize my thoughts about it. You have such a clear mind regarding all puzzling phenomena.
Socrates: Truly, it is not quite my field, but I would like to know more about this disorder that occupies you so much. Why do you call it a syndrome and not a disease?
Heraclides: We physicians use that word to designate a group of symptoms, feelings, or abnormal examination findings that seem to occur together. A syndrome is almost the same as a disease, but not exactly. We call a disorder a "disease" when we think we know where the fault lies, but we call it a "syndrome" when we do not. Nevertheless, the two terms are often confused and used synonymously.
Socrates: But this is truly a syndrome, I suppose, since you say you have difficulty understanding it. What exactly are these symptoms of the body?
Heraclides: I admit that the symptoms are very diverse. Some patients have constipation, others diarrhea, and many have both alternately. Some complain of bloating, others of cramps, and some of a feeling of incomplete evacuation. There are also complaints of nausea, fatigue, and back pain. It is not a simple picture.
Socrates: Then is it not difficult to make a diagnosis? Especially since you seem to rely on the patient's report rather than on objective facts?
Heraclides: Yes, one must rely heavily on what the patient describes. There is no laboratory test or X-ray that can confirm the diagnosis with certainty.
Socrates: Really? But if the symptoms are so variable, how can you be sure that all these people have the same condition? Could it not be that you are lumping together several different diseases under one name?
Heraclides: That is possible, I admit. But it is a useful concept, and it helps us to comfort the patient and to avoid unnecessary surgery or dangerous treatments.
Socrates: But does it help you to cure the patient?
Heraclides: Not always, I confess. Many patients continue to suffer despite all our efforts.
Socrates: Then it seems to me that the name is more for the physician's convenience than for the patient's benefit.
Heraclides: Perhaps you are right, Socrates. But what else can we do? We must call it something.
Socrates: Could it not be better to say, "I do not know what is wrong with you," rather than to give a name that implies knowledge you do not possess?
Heraclides: That would be honest, but patients expect a diagnosis. They are reassured by a name, even if it is not fully understood.
Socrates: So you give them a name to comfort them, even though you cannot cure them? Is that not a form of deception?
Heraclides: It is not deception, Socrates. It is a way of saying, "I believe you, your suffering is real, and I will try to help you."
Socrates: I see. But tell me, if you cannot define the disease precisely, how do you know when you have treated it successfully?
Heraclides: We rely on the patient's report of improvement.
Socrates: And if the patient feels better, you call that success, even though you may not know why?
Heraclides: Yes, that is essentially correct.
Socrates: Then you are like a man who tries to find his way in the dark, feeling for the walls, but never knowing if he is in the right room.
Heraclides: That is a harsh comparison, but not entirely unjust.
Socrates: Forgive me, my friend. I do not mean to criticize you. I only wish to understand. It seems to me that Irritable Bowel Syndrome is a name for our ignorance, not for our knowledge.
Heraclides: You may be right, Socrates. But until we know more, it is the best we can do.
Socrates: And yet, not all animals with hooves are horses. Nevertheless, the combination of hooves, a tail, and a mane strongly suggests that it is a horse, does it not?
Heraclides: Certainly, or something very like a horse.
Socrates: If one of these features is missing – the mane, the tail, or the hooves – is it then another animal, or is it still a horse?
Heraclides: I see what you are getting at. If one of these features were missing, I would still call it a horse, but an atypical one.
Socrates: If you described a horse as carefully as you could, could you describe it so that it could be clearly distinguished from a donkey?
Heraclides: That would certainly be difficult.
Socrates: It seems to me that the horse has an essence* that defines it, an essence that eludes precise description. From whatever angle you look at it, or even if you cannot see the details clearly because of distance or lighting, or even if you cannot see some parts at all, you can usually say that it is a horse. Do you agree?
[*Translator's note: In the original, the word is ambiguous – "essence" = smell/stench or (philosophical) essence.]
Heraclides: Yes, and it is exactly the same with Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
Socrates: And yet it seems to me that Irritable Bowel Syndrome, however carefully you describe it, is difficult to distinguish in its description from other diseases, just as it is difficult to distinguish a horse from a donkey. Is that correct?
Heraclides: Yes, I admit that.
Socrates: The essence of a horse differs from that of a donkey, but they are really similar in many points, and so one can mistake them if you do not see the animal completely. Could it not be the same way that different diseases appear quite similar to you? It seems to me that you may not be justified in calling Irritable Bowel Syndrome a single disease entity.
Heraclides: Yes, I admit that is possible, but there are many people in whom we find no evidence of any other disease that we have defined or identified.
Socrates: Let me approach this point from another angle. You physicians have been at your work so long and with such dedication that you can now identify very many diseases.
Heraclides: Yes, very many.
Socrates: You can often make a positive diagnosis with great reliability, so that you can give the best advice and treatment recommendations with confidence.
Heraclides: Yes, that is so.
Socrates: Do you believe that you have identified all diseases of the gastrointestinal tract except for one?
Heraclides: I would like to believe that, but I am not presumptuous enough to do so. I know that many mysteries of the bowel remain and that other diseases will be discovered when we have the opportunity to examine the bowel in new ways.
Socrates: Truly, I praise your modesty. But I see a problem in your logic. If you admit that more diseases remain to be described, then the patients who report these variable symptoms we have discussed might not all have one specific disease, but any one of several diseases.
Heraclides: I admit that you are right.
Socrates: Then it seems to me that there is no sense in assuming that all have the same disease. If you place all these patients in the same category by calling them victims of Irritable Bowel Syndrome, are you not contradicting yourself?
Heraclides: Perhaps, but it must be a useful habit, otherwise we would not do it.
Socrates: Agreed, it must be useful, but what purpose does it serve? Does it help you to understand the nature of the disease better?
Heraclides: I admit, no.
Socrates: Does it help the patients?
Heraclides: Well, not very much in terms of relieving the complaints. It gives them a name, and that may reassure them. But in truth, many continue to suffer despite all our treatment. It gives us, the physicians, a sense of security, because we can say: "You have Irritable Bowel Syndrome" – and thus we avoid unnecessary investigations and surgeries. But as for a cure, we can do little.
Socrates: So, after all, the name serves the physician more than the patient?
Heraclides: Perhaps. But it is not completely useless. It helps us recognize patterns, predict the course of the disease, and give some comfort to the patient by assuring them that they do not have a serious or fatal illness.
Socrates: But if the very nature of the disease is uncertain, how can you predict its course?
Heraclides: Based on experience. Many patients improve over time, or at least learn to cope with the symptoms.
Socrates: Is that not true for all chronic diseases?
Heraclides: Yes, it is.
Socrates: Then you are not describing a specific disease, but rather a collection of common complaints that may have many different causes.
Heraclides: That is possible. But for now, it is the best we have.
Socrates: Would it not be more honest to tell the patient: "I do not know exactly what you have, but I believe you and I will try to help you," rather than giving a name that seems to explain what we do not explain?
Heraclides: Perhaps you are right, Socrates. But patients want a name. They are more at ease when they know that their condition has a recognized name.
Socrates: Is that not more of an illusion than true knowledge?
Heraclides: It may be. But sometimes illusion is part of the cure.
Socrates: Then medicine is, in part, an art of deceiving?
Heraclides: No, it is an art of comforting and helping, even when we cannot cure.
Socrates: I understand. But tell me: if one day you discover that Irritable Bowel Syndrome is not a single disease but many, will you be surprised?
Heraclides: No. I already suspect that. But as long as we do not have the means to distinguish those diseases, the best thing is to keep the name.
Socrates: And so you continue to call a horse anything that has four legs and a mane, even if it might be a donkey.
Heraclides: A fair comparison, Socrates.