Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 341–352 | Cite as

Medicalization and epistemic injustice

  • Alistair Wardrope
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

Many critics of medicalization (the process by which phenomena become candidates for medical definition, explanation and treatment) express concern that the process privileges individualised, biologically grounded interpretations of medicalized phenomena, inhibiting understanding and communication of aspects of those phenomena that are less relevant to their biomedical modelling. I suggest that this line of critique views medicalization as a hermeneutical injustice—a form of epistemic injustice that prevents people having the hermeneutical resources available to interpret and communicate significant areas of their experience. Interpreting the critiques in this fashion shows they frequently fail because they: neglect the ways in which medicalization may not obscure, but rather illuminate, individuals’ experiences; and neglect the testimony of those experiencing first-hand medicalized problems, thus may be guilty of perpetrating testimonial injustice. However, I suggest that such arguments are valuable insofar as they highlight the unwarranted epistemic privilege frequently afforded to medical institutions and medicalized models of phenomena, and a consequent need for greater epistemic humility on the part of health workers and researchers.

Keywords

Medicalization Hermeneutical injustice Testimonial injustice Enhancement Psychiatric diagnosis Health promotion Epistemic humility 

References

  1. Abraham, John. 2010. Pharmaceuticalization of society in context: Theoretical, empirical, and health dimensions. Sociology 14(4): 603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, Elizabeth. 2009. Disability and adaptive preference. Philosophical Perspectives 23(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel, William, and Robert C. Richardson. 2010. Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, Susan, and Ann Figert. 2012. Medicalization and pharmaceuticalization at the intersections: Looking backward, sideways, and forward. Social Science and Medicine 75(5): 775–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonner, Adrian, and Ian Gilmore. 2012. The UK responsibility deal and its implications for effective alcohol policy in the UK and internationally. Addiction 107(12): 2063–2065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownmiller, Susan. 1999. In our time: Memoir of a revolution. New York: The Dial Press.Google Scholar
  7. Calhoun, Cheshire. 1988. Justice, Care, Gender Bias. The Journal of Philosophy 85(9): 451–463.Google Scholar
  8. Campaner, Raffaella. 2011. Understanding mechanisms in the health sciences. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32(1): 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carel, Havi, and Ian James Kidd. 2014. Epistemic injustice in healthcare: A philosophical analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17(4): 529–540.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, Jocalyn. 2014. Medicalization of global health 1: Has the global health agenda become too medicalized?’ Global Health Action 7: 23998.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, Adele, Janet Shim, Laura Mamo, Jennifer Ruth Fosket, and Jennifer Fishman. 2003. Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S. biomedicine. American Sociological Review 68(2): 161–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conrad, Peter. 1992. Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology 18: 209–232.Google Scholar
  13. Cosgrove, Lisa. 2011. The DSM, big pharma, and clinical practice guidelines: Protecting patient autonomy and informed consent. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 4(1): 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwall, Stephen. 2009. The second-person standpoint: morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, Joseph E. 2010. Medicalization, social control, and the release of suffering. In The new blackwell companion to medical sociology, ed. William Cockerham, 211–241. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Earp, Brian D., Anders Sandberg, and Julian Savulescu. 2014. The medicalization of love. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. Forthcoming. Preprint, https://www.academia.edu/7066855/The_medicalization_of_love. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
  17. Elliott, Carl. 1998. The tyranny of happiness: Ethics and cosmetic psychopharmacology. In Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications, ed. Erik Parens, 177–188. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Elliott, Carl. 2004. Better than well: American medicine meets the American dream. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  19. Fitzpatrick, Mike. 2004. From “nanny State” to “therapeutic State”. The British Journal of General Practice 54(505): 645.Google Scholar
  20. Fraser, Giles. 2013. Taking pills for unhappiness reinforces the idea that being sad is not human. The Guardian, August 9 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/aug/09/pills-unhappiness-reinforces-sad-human.
  21. Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garry, Ann. 2001. Medicine and medicalization: A response to purdy. Bioethics 15(3): 262–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giere, Ronald N. 2009. An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese 172(2): 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glennan, S. 2005. Modeling mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36(2): 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heath, I. 2013. Overdiagnosis: When good intentions meet vested interests—an essay by iona heath. BMJ 347: f6361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Illich, Ivan. 1977. Limits to medicine: Medical nemesis—the expropriation of health. New York: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Illich, Ivan. 2003. Medical nemesis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57(12): 919–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ipsos MORI. 2011. Doctors are most trusted profession: Politicians least trusted. Ipsos MORI. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2818/Doctors-are-most-trusted-profession-politicians-least-trusted.aspx.
  29. Karp, David A. 2007. Is it me or my meds? Living with antidepressants. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Korsgaard, Christine M. 1996. The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kraemer, Felicitas. 2010. Authenticity anyone? The enhancement of emotions via neuro-psychopharmacology. Neuroethics 4(1): 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kramer, Peter D. 1997. Listening to prozac. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  33. Kriss, Sam. 2013. Book of lamentations. The New Inquiry. http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/book-of-lamentations/.
  34. Kukla, Rebecca. 2005. Conscientious autonomy: Displacing decisions in health care. Hastings Center Report 35(2): 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lippman, Abby. 1998. The politics of health: Geneticization versus health promotion. In The politics of women’s health: Exploring agency and autonomy, ed. Susan Sherwin, 64–82. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Machamer, Peter K., Lindley Darden, and Carl F. Craver. 2000. Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 67(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marmot, M. G., J. Allen, P. Goldblatt, T. Boyce, D. McNeish, M. Grady, I. Geddes, and others undefined. 2010. Fair society, healthy lives: Strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010.Google Scholar
  38. Mason, Rebecca. 2011. Two kinds of unknowing. Hypatia 26(2): 294–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCoy, D., H. Montgomery, S. Arulkumaran, and F. Godlee. 2014. Climate change and human survival. BMJ 348: g2351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morgan, Kathryn Pauly. 1998. Contested bodies, contested knowledges: Women, health, and the politics of medicalization. In The politics of women’s health: Exploring agency and autonomy, ed. Susan Sherwin, 83–121. Philadephia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Moynihan, R., J. Doust, and D. Henry. 2012. Preventing overdiagnosis: How to stop harming the healthy. BMJ 344: e3502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Narayan, Uma. 2002. Minds of their own: Choices, autonomy, cultural practices, and other women. In A mind of one’s own: Feminist essays on reason and objectivity, 2nd ed, ed. Louise Antony, and Charlotte Witt, 418–432. Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  43. Nervi, Mauro. 2010. Mechanisms, malfunctions and explanation in medicine. Biology and Philosophy 25(2): 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parker, W.S. 2010. Scientific models and adequacy-for-purpose. The Modern Schoolman 87(3): 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Patton, Cindy. 2007. Bullets, balance, or both: medicalization in HIV treatment. The Lancet 369(9562): 706–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pohlhaus, G. 2011. Relational knowing and epistemic injustice: Toward a theory of willful hermeneutical ignorance. Hypatia 27(4): 715–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose, Steven. 2013. Commentary on Singh: Not robots—children’s perspectives on authenticity, moral agency and stimulant drug treatments. Journal of Medical Ethics 39(6): 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Self, Will. 2013. Psychiatrists: The drug pushers. The Guardian, August 3 http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/03/will-self-psychiatrist-drug-medication.
  49. Singh, Ilina. 2013a. Victimology versus character: New perspectives on the use of stimulant drugs in children. Journal of Medical Ethics 39(6): 372–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Singh, Ilina. 2013b. Not robots: Children’s perspectives on authenticity, moral agency and stimulant drug treatments. Journal of Medical Ethics 39(6): 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verweij, Marcel. 1999. Medicalization as a moral problem for preventive medicine. Bioethics 13(2): 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Medical SchoolThe University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations