Explore the vast range of titles available.

Is medicalization always harmful? When does medicine overstep its proper boundaries? The aim of this article is to outline the pragmatic criteria for distinguishing between medicalization and over-medicalization. The consequences of considering a phenomenon to be a medical problem may take radically different forms depending on whether the problem in question is correctly or incorrectly perceived as a medical issue. Neither indiscriminate acceptance of medicalization of subsequent areas of human existence, nor criticizing new medicalization cases just because they are medicalization can be justified. The article: (i) identifies various consequences of both well-founded medicalization and over-medicalization; (ii) demonstrates that the issue of defining appropriate limits of medicine cannot be solved by creating an optimum model of health; (iii) proposes four guiding questions to help distinguish medicalization from over-medicalization. The article should foster a normative analysis of the phenomenon of medicalization and contribute to the bioethical reflection on the boundaries of medicine.

This book discusses how counselling, a profession known for diverse and innovative practices, has recently been influenced by scientific, marketplace, and administrative developments corresponding with a medicalized focus on psychiatric diagnoses and related evidence-based treatments. Tensions associated with this medicalized focus refer to competing logics and accountabilities regarding how to understand and address concerns brought to counselling. Tom Strong reviews such tensions as they relate to counsellors' approaches to practice experienced as incompatible with a medicalized approach. The role of media and technology, therapy culture, and counsellor education, are examined with respect to medicalizing tensions that professionals and clients of counselling increasingly face. The book will interest readers who share concerns regarding the potential for a mental health monoculture grounded in the diagnose and treatment logic of medicalized counselling.

This article examines the processes of medicalization and bio medicalization as key dynamics shaping contemporary relationships between body, health, and subjectivity. Drawing on sociological theories of rationalization, biopower, and social control, the paper analyses how health has progressively shifted from contingent condition to a permanent moral project. Through a theoretical framework informed by Weber’s concepts of disenchantment and re-enchantment and Foucault’s notion of biopower, the article shows how medical knowledge, technoscience, and market logics converge in producing normative standards of health and responsible self-care. Medicalization is interpreted not merely as the expansion of medical authority, but as a broader mechanism of governance that encourages self-monitoring, prevention, and performance-oriented lifestyles. While these processes promise autonomy and empowerment, they also contribute to the individualization of social problems, the moralization of illness, and the reinforcement of social inequalities. Health thus emerges as a privileged site where rationalization and symbolic meaning intersect, transforming care of the self into a socially regulated moral obligation rather than a purely biomedical concern.

This study explored the experiences of trans and nonbinary (TNB) individuals in relation to gender dysphoria, specifically focusing on information they have received from sociocultural agents (i.e., messages) about gender dysphoria and how their actual experiences align or differ from these messages. A sample of 104 participants responded to four prompts: what sociocultural messages have you received from others about gender dysphoria, where did you hear this information, how have your experiences of gender dysphoria been similar to these sociocultural messages, and how have your experiences been different from these sociocultural messages. Content analysis identified that the primary source of information about gender dysphoria came from online spaces. Thematic analysis was utilized to understand the content of messages and alignment with lived experiences. Thematic results indicated that six themes were present in the sociocultural messages as well as participants’ lived experience: (a) diverse expressions of gender dysphoria symptoms, (b) perspectives on the dimensions of gender dysphoria, (c) gender dysphoria is distressing, (d) the nuanced and individualized nature of gender dysphoria, (e) complex relations between medical transition and gender dysphoria, and (f) stigmatizing perceptions of individuals with gender dysphoria. Although themes were present across both sociocultural messages and lived experience, the ways participants described their experiences of gender dysphoria in comparison to the messages were complementing, conflicting, and contradicting. Taken as a whole, the results indicate that while trans medicalization and trans normativity dictate a unifying experience of gender dysphoria, TNB individuals’ experiences are more varied and nuanced. Discussion focuses on the importance of recognizing the complexity and diversity of gender dysphoria experiences.

Despite the clear stand taken by the United Nations (UN) and other international bodies in ensuring that female genital cutting (FGC) is not performed by health professionals, the rate of medicalization has not reduced. The current study aimed to determine the extent of medicalization of FGC among doctors in Malaysia, who the doctors were who practiced it, how and what was practiced, and the motivations for the practice. This mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) study was conducted from 2018 to 2019 using a self-administered questionnaire among Muslim medical doctors from 2 main medical associations with a large number of Muslim members from all over Malaysia who attended their annual conference. For those doctors who did not attend the conference, the questionnaire was posted to them. Association A had 510 members, 64 male Muslim doctors and 333 female Muslim doctors. Association B only had Muslim doctors; 3,088 were female, and 1,323 were male. In total, 894 questionnaires were distributed either by hand or by post, and 366 completed questionnaires were received back. For the qualitative part of the study, a snowball sampling method was used, and 24 in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire, until data reached saturation. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS version 18 (IBM, Armonk, NY). A chi-squared test and binary logistic regression were performed. The qualitative data were transcribed manually, organized, coded, and recoded using NVivo version 12. The clustered codes were elicited as common themes. Most of the respondents were women, had medical degrees from Malaysia, and had a postgraduate degree in Family Medicine. The median age was 42. Most were working with the Ministry of Health (MoH) Malaysia, and in a clinic located in an urban location. The prevalence of Muslim doctors practising FGC was 20.5% (95% CI 16.6-24.9). The main reason cited for practising FGC was religious obligation. Qualitative findings too showed that religion was a strong motivating factor for the practice and its continuation, besides culture and harm reduction. Although most Muslim doctors performed type IV FGC, there were a substantial number performing type I. Respondents who were women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.4, 95% CI 1.9-10.0. P ≤ 0.001), who owned a clinic (aOR 30.7, 95% CI 12.0-78.4. P ≤ 0.001) or jointly owned a clinic (aOR 7.61, 95% CI 3.2-18.1. P ≤ 0.001), who thought that FGC was legal in Malaysia (aOR 2.09, 95% CI 1.02-4.3. P = 0.04), and who were encouraged in religion (aOR 2.25, 95% CI 3.2-18.1. P = 0.036) and thought that FGC should continue (aOR 3.54, 95% CI 1.25-10.04. P = 0.017) were more likely to practice FGC. The main limitations of the study were the small sample size and low response rate. In this study, we found that many of the Muslim doctors were unaware of the legal and international stand against FGC, and many wanted the practice to continue. It is a concern that type IV FGC carried out by traditional midwives may be supplanted and exacerbated by type I FGC performed by doctors, calling for strong and urgent action by the Malaysian medical authorities.

Sciatica is a common back problem with a generally positive natural course. This interview study was performed to gain increased insight into ambivalent and reluctant medicalization on the interactional level regarding the perceptions of Dutch patients and physicians about sciatica and its treatment options as a case study. While the concept of medicalization was introduced decades ago, nuanced perspectives on medicalization on the interactional level—ambivalent and reluctant medicalization—were added recently. Interviews were conducted with 10 patients and 22 clinicians and analyzed using these perspectives. The findings show that patients and clinicians share the problem definition of sciatica, which is stated to be the essence of medicalization. They differ from each other regarding the preferred course of action after diagnosis. Ambivalent and reluctant medicalization both highlight that medicalization in practice is often an uncertain and contested process, with medical intervention as a compromise result. In this case, the problem was not in the diagnosis but in reaching a treatment compromise, considering how much discomfort due to sciatica a patient could handle.

In recent years, there has been a global increase in human life expectancy, but preventable morbidity and mortality remain significant concerns. To address these issues, preventive healthcare practice has gained importance in various healthcare disciplines. Its goal is to maintain and promote health, reduce risk factors, diagnose illnesses early, and prevent complications. This approach encompasses different stages of disease progression, including primordial prevention, primary prevention, secondary prevention, tertiary prevention, and quaternary prevention. Primordial prevention focuses on addressing root causes and social determinants of diseases to prevent the emergence and development of risk factors. Primary prevention aims to prevent diseases before they occur by implementing interventions such as vaccinations and health education. Secondary prevention focuses on early detection and prompt intervention to prevent the progression of diseases. Tertiary prevention manages the consequences of diseases by restoring health and providing rehabilitation. Lastly, quaternary prevention aims to protect patients from unnecessary medical interventions and harm caused by excessive medicalization. Despite the recognition of the cost-effectiveness of preventive measures, a significant portion of healthcare resources and attention is still allocated to disease management, and only a small percentage of individuals receive all recommended preventive services. Healthcare providers need to prioritize the implementation of preventive care services, even when clinical interventions are necessary, and overcome barriers to preventive care. By investing in preventive care and implementing these strategies, healthcare practitioners can play a crucial role in disease prevention and contribute to the well-being of individuals, families, communities, and countries.