Ulysses syndrome
BMJ 2005; 330 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7502.1268 (Published 26 May 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:1268All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Essex's "eponym" appears to correspond, to an extent, to the acronym
VOMIT (victim[s] of modern imaging technology) also described in the BMJ
by Hayward in June 2003.
If we accept the condition we will have to decide if we prefer the
eponym or the acronym. I suspect the decision may be dependent on which
side of the Atlantic one is.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
"Tar baby syndrome" describes a similar physician behaviour of
getting trapped in to an endless web of fruitless investigations. The
older generation who used to know "Brer Fox" and "Brer Rabbit" will
appreciate this metaphor.
(ref - Ober KP. Uncle Remus and the cascade effect in clinical
medicine: Brer Rabbit
kicks the Tar-Baby. Am J Med 1987; 82:1009-1013)
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
An example of "No Lose" philosophy
The Ulysses syndrome is an excellent example of the more general "No
Lose" philosophy(1)in medicine in which doctors investigate or treat
patients on the basis that although it is unlikely to be helpful at least
there is nothing to lose. This is derived from Pascal's "Penses" in which
he advocated believing in god because if god did not exist there was
nothing to lose. However as many pointed out at the time and as this
article reminds us there is indeed much to lose.
1. Galbraith SL The "No Lose" philosophy in medicine. J Medical
Ethics 1978 4:61-63
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests