Pain and suffering are important to patients, and therefore, their interaction is central to clinical care. It also encompasses issues at the forefront of pain neuroscience, evolution, epidemiology, and treatment development. While Medieval Europe understood pain as a religious problem and Enlightenment theorists framed pain as a social problem, over the past 200 years, we have come to see pain as a medical problem. The medical problem of pain was originally addressed through the diagnosis and treatment of disease, but Pain Medicine has made the causation and treatment of pain a separate focus for research and clinical care. Palliative care reintroduced attention to suffering into the modern hospital. Eric Cassell argued that suffering arises from threats to the person that go beyond threats to the body. His theory of suffering has been criticized for being too focused on patients' narrative and too tied to a nociception-centered notion of pain. In general, modern medicine has promoted a unidirectional linear model of pain causing suffering in the individual patient. However, this model is not consistent with the latest pain neuroscience and is no longer adequate to guide research or clinical care. If we are to finally overcome dualism in pain theory and practice, we must begin by seeing the relationship between pain and suffering as circular rather than linear. Understanding pain and suffering as a unitary construct can advance pain research and clinical practice by providing a new framework for integrating biological, psychological, and social strategies for treating and preventing pain.
Sullivan et al. (Fri,) studied this question.