Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40982107›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

An Ethical Analysis of Medicalization and Infant Mental Healthcare.

Izaak T Lim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Izaak T LimEarly in Life Mental Health Service, Monash Health, 268 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, Australia. izaak.lim@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9643-2574

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of infant mental health has been met with some scepticism by those who question the role of the mental health professions in this space. In this paper I will consider a possible ethical objection to the extension of medical jurisdiction over infancy and parenting, informed by the critical tradition of medicalization studies. In part I of the paper, I will give particular attention to three potentially harmful consequences of medicalization on infants and their families-the expansion of medical social control, the individualization of human suffering, and the pathologization of human behaviour and variation. In part II, I will provide an ethical defence of infant mental health, addressing the objections raised by a medicalization-based critique. I will conclude in part III that medicalization is not always bad for infants and their families, and that, in the case of infant mental health, there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between medicalization and infant rights claims to the fundamental conditions for pursuing a good life.

Indexed as

MedicalizationMental HealthMental Health ServicesParentingEthical AnalysisHuman RightsHumansInfantEthicsInfant mental healthInfant rightsMedicalization

Identifiers

PMID40982107
PMCPMC13068715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.