Unfortunately, the term “medicalization” has become a divisive label which is slapped on anything that doesn’t conform to the confimation bias of the research or reader.

And we all have a tendency to slip into demonization when we feel strongly one way or the other. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does leave us vulnerable to condoning unethical behavior when we go by “what we think we know” instead of actually examining the facts in a neutral manner.

The problem that emerges is when the theory of medicalization as expressed by Emile Zola, Peter Conrad, Ivan Illich and Michel Foucault among others becomes a political weapon in the wars of academia.

For example, in the context of psychosomatic medicine, if an academic researcher’s entire career is based on a hypothesis that is proven wrong by biomedical research they stand to lose a great deal both professionally and financially.

An example could be “Ulcers are caused by stress not bacteria.” For nearly 15 years the “biomedical” information was suppressed by political means – some fair, some not. I’m sure there are other examples where psychosocial research has been given short thrift as well.)

In recent years, in an effort to prevent that from happening the researcher begins a smear campaign using the label of medicalization and the knee jerk mantra of “Big Pharma is the root of all evil,” to neutralize, discredit or even eliminate the threat. Like lemmings, the “me too” herd thunders along behind them unthinkingly.

In this specific example, the argument shouldn’t be whether or not something is “bio” or “psychosocial,” but how an unethical few use specious ideological arguments to maintain power, prestige and financial gain. (Think beyond Big Pharma – lucrative consultancies with disability insurance, promoting a line of nutritional products etc.)