Social Theory & Health

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 109–128 | Cite as

Limitations in the bioethical analysis of medicalisation: The case of love drugs

  • Nathan Emmerich
Original Article

Abstract

A number of articles concerning the idea of ‘love drugs’ have recently appeared in the bioethical literature. While, as yet, the idea is little more than science fiction, such drugs have been positioned as ‘neurotechnologies’ that will offer us the opportunity to enhance our marriages. Following a classically liberal approach, the strategy has been, first, to argue that there is no reason individuals should be prevented from using such drugs if they wish to use them, and, second, to adduce reasons why individuals might be morally motivated to do so. This work has been followed by a paper that considered whether such drugs will ‘medicalise’ love and, if so, whether any (bio)ethical implications follow from their potential to do so. In response, this article argues that traditional forms of bioethical analysis are ill placed to fully grasp the moral dimension of medicalisation. Using the concepts of biomedicalisation, theraputicisation and moralisation I attempt to show that bioethical scholarship can be considered part of these social processes, and, properly understood, they imply that our social, cultural and political norms, such as those that inform our conception of love and intimacy, are subject to change. As a result a more biopolitical approach is to be recommended.

Keywords

bioethics medicalisation love drugs enhancement biopolitics social norms 

References

  1. Clarke, A.E., Shim, J.K., Mamo, L., Fosket, J.R. and Fishman, J.R. (2003) Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and US biomedicine. American Sociological Review 68 (2): 161–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coontz, S. (2006) Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Penguin USA.Google Scholar
  3. Downing, R. (2011) Biohealth. Beyond Medicalization: Imposing Health. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Earp, B.D., Sandberg, A. and Savulescu, J. (2012) Natural selection, childrearing, and the Ethics of marriage (and divorce): Building a case for the neuroenhancement of human relationships. Philosophy & Technology 25 (4): 561–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Earp, B.D., Sandberg, A. and Savulescu, J. (2014) Brave new love: The threat of high-tech ‘conversion’ therapy and the bio-oppression of sexual minorities. AJOB Neuroscience 5 (1): 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Earp, B.D., Sandberg, A. and Savulescu, J. (2015a) (Online First). The medicalization of love. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=CQH&tab=firstview.
  7. Earp, B.D., Wudarczyk, O.A., Foddy, B. and Savulescu, J. (2015b) Addicted to Love: What is love addiction and when should it be treated? Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, https://www.academia.edu/3393872/Addicted_to_love_What_is_love_addiction_and_when_should_it_be_treated, accessed 28 April 2015.
  8. Earp, B.D., Wudarczyk, O.A., Sandberg, A. and Savulescu, J. (2013) If i could just stop loving you: Anti-love biotechnology and the Ethics of a chemical breakup. The American Journal of Bioethics 13 (11): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gellner, E. (1992) Reason and Culture: A Sociological and Philosophical Study of the Role of Rationality and Rationalism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Giddens, A. (2013) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. California, USA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Illouz, E. (1997) Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Illouz, E. (2008) Saving the Modern Soul: Therapy, Emotions, and the Culture of Self-Help. California, USA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Illouz, E. (2012) Why Love Hurts: A Sociological Explanation. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  14. Martin, M.W. (2006) From Morality to Mental Health: Virtue and Vice in a Therapeutic Culture. New York, USA: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. May, S. (2012) Love: A History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Minerva, F. (2012) Medicalisation, biomedicalisation and farmaceutisation from a sociological and from a bioethical perspective. Salute e Società 11 (2): 177–181.Google Scholar
  17. Mintz, S. (2015) The Prime of Life: A History of Modern Adulthood. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parens, E. (2013) On good and bad forms of medicalization. Bioethics 27 (1): 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paul, L., Foss, M.A. and Baenninger, M.A. (1996) Double standards for sexual jealousy. Human Nature 7 (3): 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Persson, I. and Savulescu, J. (2008) The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3): 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinker, S. (2012) The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Rose, N. (1991) Experts of the Soul. Psychologie und Geschichte 3 (1/2): 91–99.Google Scholar
  23. Rose, N. and Abi-Rached, J.M. (2013) Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ryan, C. and Jetha, C. (2010) Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. New York, USA: Harper.Google Scholar
  25. Savulescu, J. and Sandberg, A. (2008) Neuroenhancement of love and marriage: The chemicals between Us. Neuroethics 1 (1): 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wudarczyk, O.A., Earp, B.D., Guastella, A. and Savulescu, J. (2013) Could intranasal oxytocin be used to enhance relationships? Research imperatives, clinical policy, and ethical considerations. Current Opinion Psychiatry 26 (5): 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Emmerich
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queen’s University BelfastBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations