ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026
How to deal with controversies in the evaluation of medicalization: a case study of PMS and PMDD.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medicalization has become a key topic in contemporary philosophy of medicine. Discussions about what should be medicalized, what kinds of medicalization are desirable, and how specific cases ought to be evaluated increasingly shape debates about the boundaries and responsibilities of medicine. The medicalization debate is increasingly shaped by pragmatic considerations that draw attention to the complex interactions between mind and body and to the role of social and environmental conditions in shaping health. From this perspective, the value of medical interventions and resources lies in their capacity to contribute to broader goals such as alleviating human suffering and promoting individual and collective well-being. While pragmatic approaches address several shortcomings of stricter, often essentialist frameworks, their existing analytical tools remain limited when it comes to evaluating controversial cases of medicalization. This paper examines these limitations and develops a refined pragmatic framework for distinguishing good from problematic medicalization. Using the case study of the pharmaceutical treatment of behavioral and mood-related symptoms associated with premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), I propose a two-step approach. This two-step approach acknowledges the complexities of pragmatic medicalization and distinguishes between the potential usefulness of medicines to achieve pragmatic goals and the realization of this potential in actual practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.