ON GOOD AND BAD FORMS OF MEDICALIZATION
Abstract
The ongoing ‘enhancement’ debate pits critics of new self‐shaping technologies against enthusiasts. One important thread of that debate concerns medicalization, the process whereby ‘non‐medical’ problems become framed as ‘medical’ problems. In this paper I consider the charge of medicalization, which critics often level at new forms of technological self‐shaping, and explain how that charge can illuminate – and obfuscate. Then, more briefly, I examine the charge of pharmacological Calvinism, which enthusiasts, in their support of technological self‐shaping, often level at critics. And I suggest how that charge, too, can illuminate and obfuscate. Exploring the broad charge of medicalization and the narrower counter charge of pharmacological Calvinism leads me to conclude that, as satisfying as it can be to level one of those charges at our intellectual opponents, and as tempting as it is to lie down and rest with our favorite insight, we need to gather the energy to have a conversation about the difference between good and bad forms of medicalization. Specifically, I suggest that if we consider the ‘medicalization of love,’ we can see why critics of and enthusiasts about technological self‐shaping should want (and in some cases have already begun) to distinguish between good and bad forms of such medicalization.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In humans, synthetic oxytocin can be administered as a simple nasal spray and seems to strengthen attachment-related representations as well as romantic bonding cues.
“Similarly, in humans, synthetic oxytocin can be administered as a simple nasal spray (and seems to strengthen attachment-related representations as well as romantic bonding cues),28”
From The Medicalization of Love (2015) · cites this paper as [28]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
EARP, B. D., SANDBERG, A., & SAVULESCU, J. (2015) · Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics · doi:10.1017/s0963180114000206 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
- Authors
- PARENS, E.
- Affiliations
- Hastings Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- PARENS, ERIK
- ORCID
- PARENS, ERIK
- Venue
- Bioethics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04-29
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 28-35
- ISSN
- 0269-9702 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8519
- OpenAlex
- W2151682038
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Bioethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- World Health Organization
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Bioethics and Human Rights Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- medicalization, enhancement
- MeSH terms
- Drug Therapy, Humans, Morals, Social Values, Ethical Analysis, Medicalization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review