Search for other papers by Mohammed I. Ranavaya in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Impairment and disability resulting from claims of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) challenge independent medical examiners because of polemics associated with the syndrome, and the mainstream medical community has questioned its very existence as a medical disease entity. Since the syndrome was described in 1952, MCS has had many names, including universal allergy, total allergy syndrome, ecologic illness, 20th century disease, and chemical AIDS. Epidemiologic data show that a higher proportion of females (up to 88%) suffer from MCS, and the percentage of unemployment among MCS sufferers may be as high as 85%. The best explanation to date for MCS is that it is an illness belief system manifested by culturally shaped illness behavior. Several distinguished scientific organizations, including the AMA, conclude that there is no scientific evidence to support the MCS concept of a physiologic exposure–disease relationship; the proposed diagnostic tests and treatments have not been shown to have value; and MCS should not be a recognized clinical syndrome. Impairment evaluations should follow the guidelines in Chapters 1 and 2 of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Evaluators must recognize that MCS claimants often present with comorbid psychiatric conditions, and iatrogenic disability also is a concern among MCS patients.
-
1.
Ducatman AM. Multiple chemical sensitivity. In: Rom WN, ed. Environmental & Occupational Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998.
-
2.
Predecisional draft, Executive summary of inter agency report. A report on multiple chemical sensitivity. Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Ga; May 1999.
-
3.
Cullen, MR. The worker with multiple chemical sensitivities: An overview. Occu Med State Art Rev. 1987;2:655–661.
-
4.
Sparks PJ, Daniell W, Black DW, Kipen HM, et al.. Multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome: A clinical perspective. I. Case definition, Theories of pathogenesis, and research needs. J Occup Med. 1994;36: 718–730.
-
5.
American Medical Association. Council on Scientific Affairs Council Report: Clinical ecology. JAMA. 1992;268:3465–3467.
-
6.
Task Force on Clinical Ecology, California Medical Association Scientific Board. Clinical ecology: a critical appraisal. West J Med. 1986;144:239–245.
-
7.
American College of Physicians. American College of Physicians position statement: Clinical ecology. Ann Intern Med. 1989; 111:168–178.
-
8.
American Academy of Allergy and Immunology; American Academy of Allergy and Immunology position statement: Clinical ecology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1986;78:269–271.
-
9.
Randolph D, Ranavaya MI, Cocchiarella L. Multiple chemical sensitivities, impairment and disability issues. A position paper of American Academy of Disability Evaluating Physicians. International Journal of Disability. 1999;8:6–11.
-
10.
Consumer Union. The shot doctors. Consumer Reports. 1988;96–100.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1106 | 1044 | 23 |
| Full Text Views | 35 | 0 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 0 | 0 | 0 |
