Some attorneys and legal scholars argue that medicalizing transgender plaintiffs (i.e., introducing plaintiff diagnoses and/or medical procedures) in discrimination cases will enhance favorable plaintiff outcomes. Research and theory linking biological essentialism (i.e., believing social groups reflect biologically-rooted, stable categories) to prejudice, however, suggests that medicalizing transgender plaintiffs might not help them win cases and might instead backfire and harm their case outcomes. To test these competing hypotheses, we coded all published cases involving alleged transgender discrimination (N = 124) from 1974 to 2021. Importantly, we addressed limitations of existing research that narrowly defined transgender plaintiff medicalization exclusively via diagnosis by documenting various other forms of medicalization beyond diagnosis. Contrary to legal scholars\' claims and attorney intuitions, medicalization did not predict favorable outcomes for transgender plaintiffs. In fact, various forms of medicalization beyond diagnosis predicted negative plaintiff case outcomes. We discuss the implications of this research for informing scientific theory and legal practice.

Certified peer specialists (CPS) are mental health professionals who draw their expertise from lived experience with mental illness and mental distress. They tale a nonmedical, nonclinical approach to providing support to community members with mental health difficulties and in doing so, emphasize the role of social environmental factors that contribute to mental distress. Their perspectives are contrary to the biomedical perspective of mainstream psychiatry. While there is a significant body of literature on CPS, there is a dearth of research on how CPS engage in and perceive the broader mental health system. They resist the biomedicalization of mental illness by moving past labels and the language of pathology to facilitate recovery from mental illness and to resist stigma. Drawing from in-depth interviews with peer specialists, participant observation of a peer-run organization, and a survey of peer specialists across the United States, I ask the following research questions: How and why are CPS challenging the medical model of mental illness? How do CPS consider social environmental factors in the etiology of distress and what are the potential implications for resistance to both biomedicalization and stigmatization? My data suggest that CPS, in their critiques of the medical model and the mental health system, are actively resisting the biomedicalization of mental illness and focus on social environmental factors that contribute to experiences of distress. This research has meaningful implications for research on CPS and hope for recovery from mental illness.

暂无摘要。

Global Mental Health (GMH) is the field of study, research, and intervention, which aims at improving access to mental health worldwide. It is based on the global burden of disease research program and on the existence of a large \"treatment gap\" between the need and availability of mental health services, displaying individual and social costs of undiagnosed and untreated mental disorders, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Few academic publications in Brazil dialogue directly with the field of GMH, although several issues drawn from its agenda have been the subject of mental health policies in the country. Brazil can be classified as a middle-income country with a well-structured national health system. This system is oriented toward primary health care, which integrates both community mental health services and the broader health care network. The debate between GMH advocates and critics has unearthed old controversies in psychiatry such as universality or cultural specificity of mental disorders, their expressions, and their relationship with social and economic factors. We intend to examine how these controversies reverberate in the Brazilian mental health scenario, taking as an illustration the debates around Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in the country. ADHD discussions oppose those who argue that the condition is underdiagnosed and undertreated, and those who claim that there is overdiagnosis and overtreatment and thus, medicalization of childhood. This article presents the current status of the Brazilian mental health literature on ADHD, with emphasis on tensions around diagnosis, prevalence and interventions. Our aim is to highlight how the differential in discourse shapes the debate on ADHD in Brazil and how this may contribute to the GMH agenda. This goal will be undertaken in three steps. First, we will briefly examine studies around GMH and ADHD. Secondly, we address Brazilian studies on this theme, considering the specificities regarding the constitution of the mental health field. Finally, we will examine the debate of treatment gap vs. medicalization in the country in order to underscore the potentials and limitations of each perspective.

There has been a notable increase in the use of statins in people without cardiovascular disease but who may be at risk in the future. The majority of statin users now fall into this category but little research has focused exclusively on this group. Debate has ensued regarding medicating asymptomatic people, and processes described variously as medicalisation, biomedicalisation and pharmaceuticalisation are used to explain how this happens. These overlapping and interrelated processes require issues to be \'problemised\' as medical problems requiring medical solutions given the prevailing understandings of health, risk and disease. However, current understandings of risk and disease are not simply the result of technological and scientific advances, they are also socially constructed. We interviewed members of the public, GPs and others, and found that rather than high cholesterol being seen as one of several risk factors that contributes to heart disease, it tended to be promoted simplistically to the status of a disease needing treatment of itself. Statins were justified by those taking them as different to \'unnecessary medicines\'. However, some participants demonstrated resistance to statins, worried about over-medicalisation and deviated from accepted practices, indicating a complex \'muddling through\' in the face of uncertainty.

The paper proposes a genealogy of the biomedical paradigm surrounding childbirth, with the aim of deconstructing the principles of rationalism that led to the objectification of the body and to the consequent commodification of birth. We intend to demonstrate how such a conception of the body and of sensibility determines the birth process, which leads us to consider it an event that is relational in nature. Methodologically, this deconstruction is carried out through a critical-descriptive genealogy of the theoretical assumptions of the rationalist conception of the body. By developing the concept of ecology of childbirth, we intend to call into question this relational nature of the body and to recover the value of corporeality and embodiment as a language of proximity, within a theoretical framework of the ethics of difference. This vindication of the ecological-relational nature of sensibility has the potential to establish a dynamic of responsibility and cooperation capable of subverting the rationalist logic of control and the dominion of the current biomedical paradigm.
El presente artículo ofrece una genealogía del paradigma biomédico del parto, con el objetivo de deconstruir los principios del racionalismo que condujeron a la objetivación del cuerpo y la consecuente mercantilización del nacimiento. Se pretende demostrar cómo dicha concepción del cuerpo y de la sensibilidad determina el proceso del nacimiento, en tanto acontecimiento de carácter relacional. Metodológicamente, esta deconstrucción se lleva a cabo a través de una genealogía crítico-descriptiva de los presupuestos teóricos de la concepción racionalista del cuerpo. A través del desarrollo del concepto de ecología del parto se propone, a su vez, repensar dicho carácter relacional a partir de una propuesta valorativa de lo corporal, es decir del cuerpo entendido como lenguaje de proximidad tomando como marco de referencia teórico la ética de la diferencia. Esta reivindicación del carácter ecológico-relacional de la sensibilidad tiene potencial para instaurar una dinámica de cooperación y responsabilidad que subvierta la lógica racionalista del control y el dominio que rige el paradigma biomédico vigente.

Based on qualitative data of an upper-secondary school in Sweden\'s primary elite community, Djursholm, I propose how medical diagnosis of students as dyslexics contributes to consecrating them by offering a short cut to successful performance, while at the same time reproducing differences between social classes. The study suggests how students that do not score top can be labeled dyslexic and the social and moral consequences of that. I introduce the concept of \"consecrating medicalization\" in order to discriminate between the effects of medical diagnosis of members of different social classes. In this way, this paper contributes to further examining some key problems in medical sociology and the sociology of elites, by offering a framework of synthesis and integration.

This article revisits the notorious trial of William Windham, a wealthy young man accused of lunacy. The trial in 1861-2 saw the country\'s foremost experts on psychological medicine very publicly debate the concepts, symptoms and diagnosis of insanity. I begin by surveying the trial and the testimonies of medical experts. Their disparate assessments of Windham evoked heated reactions in the press and Parliament; these reactions are the focus of the second section. I then proceed to examine criticism of psychiatry in the newspapers more generally in the 1860s, outlining the political resistance to psychiatry and the responses of some leading psychiatrists. In conclusion, I consider what this says about the politics of medicalization at the time.

\"Medicalization\" has been a contentious notion since its introduction centuries ago. While some scholars lamented a medical overreach into social domains, others hailed its promise for social justice advocacy. Against the backdrop of a growing commitment to health equity across the nation, this article reviews historical interpretations of medicalization, offers an application of the term to non-biologic risk factors for disease, and presents the case of housing the demonstrate the great potential of medicalizing poverty.

Recent studies have explored how professionals draw boundaries to reach workable solutions in conflictual and contested areas. Yet they neglected to explore the relationships and dynamics between how boundaries are demarcated in rhetoric and in policy. This article examines these relationships empirically through the case of medical cannabis (MC) policy-making in Israel. Drawing on interviews with key stakeholders in the MC policy field, formal policy documents, and observations of MC conferences, this article sheds light on the dynamics between rhetorical boundary-work and what we term regulatory boundary-work, namely setting rules and regulations to demarcate boundaries in actual practice. Results show how certain definitions of and rationales for a discursive separation between \"medical\" and \"recreational\" cannabis and between cannabis \"medicalization\" and \"legalization\" prevailed and were translated into formal policy, as well as how stakeholders\' reactions to this boundary-work produced policy changes and the shifting of boundaries. Both rhetorical and regulatory boundary-works emerge as ongoing contested processes of negotiation, which are linked in a pattern of reciprocal influence. These processes are dominated by certain actors who have greater power to determine how and why specific boundaries should be drawn instead of others.