Therapeutic transition is commonly framed within biomedical discourse as an instrumental modification aimed at optimizing clinical outcomes. While this perspective is indispensable for clinical decision-making, it captures only a limited dimension of what therapeutic change entails. This article proposes a symbolic-theoretical framework for understanding therapeutic transition as a meaningful reconfiguration of embodied experience rather than as a purely technical adjustment. Drawing on phenomen…
Read moreTherapeutic transition is commonly framed within biomedical discourse as an instrumental modification aimed at optimizing clinical outcomes. While this perspective is indispensable for clinical decision-making, it captures only a limited dimension of what therapeutic change entails. This article proposes a symbolic-theoretical framework for understanding therapeutic transition as a meaningful reconfiguration of embodied experience rather than as a purely technical adjustment. Drawing on phenomenology, medical anthropology, narrative theory, and medical humanities, the paper reconceptualizes the body as an interpretative field through which therapeutic change is lived, negotiated, and integrated into personal identity. It argues that symbolic interpretation is not an optional supplement to biomedical explanation, but a structural necessity for articulating dimensions of therapeutic experience that resist outcome-based evaluation. On this basis, the article identifies a symbolic architecture of therapeutic transition composed of modulation, regulation, suspension, and persistence. These dimensions do not describe stages or trajectories, but recurring structural patterns through which change is experienced. Their configuration reveals the inherently asymmetrical and partial nature of therapeutic transformation, challenging totalizing models of healing. By foregrounding asymmetry, limits, and finitude, the paper reframes therapeutic transition as a process of meaningful adjustment rather than comprehensive resolution. It argues that attention to symbolic frameworks enriches medical understanding by clarifying the human limits within which therapeutic intervention operates, without opposing empirical medicine or undermining its epistemic authority.