Why isn't androgenetic alopecia considered a disease?

nir7699

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
21
Why is it called a disorder? Or even, why not call it a condition or a hair style?

I see some men can ignore it, some are bothered by it, and some are really ashamed of it. Physicians tend to treat it as a minor cosmetic issue. (While alopecia areata is treated more seriously).
 

Here For the Lulz

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
141
The answer is in the name…it’s not disease or a condition as those are caused by an outside vector while male pattern baldness comes from your DNA. In other words, there is no baldness pathogen to combat (not a disease), it will occur devoid of circumstantial manifestation (not a condition), and it isn’t a symptom of another condition (not a syndrome).

It isn’t treated as high priority because it’s not inherently lethal. On top of that, meaningful steps will require the support of a huge subset of the geneticist community field to focus on it to ever hope to solve it, but how could a geneticist ever justify such a choice in light of a field dominated by lethal congenital cancer, deformity, and developmental disability?

The reason some types of baldness are treated more seriously than others comes down to the distinction between baldness being the issue itself and baldness being a symptom. When baldness is a symptom and known to be free of male pattern baldness, it is part of a syndrome and therefore critical it to be taken seriously if for no other reason than eliminating possible causes.
 
Last edited:
Top