Normality, therapy, and enhancement - What should bioconservatives say about the medicalization of love?


Authors
Alberto Giubilini
Università degli Studi di Milano (PhD)
Abstract
According to human enhancement advocates, it is morally permissible (and sometimes obligatory) to use biomedical means to modulate or select certain biological traits in order to increase people’s welfare, even when there is no pathology to be treated or prevented. Some authors have recently proposed to extend the use of biomedical means to modulate lust, attraction, and attachment. I focus on some conceptual implications of this proposal, particularly with regard to bioconservatives’ understanding of the notions of therapy and enhancement I first explain what makes the proposal of medicalizing love interesting and unique, compared to the other forms of bioenhancement usually advocated. I then discuss how the medicalization of love bears on the more general debate on human enhancement, particularly with regard to the key notion of “normality” that is commonly used to define the therapy–enhancement distinction. This analysis suggests that the medicalization of love, in virtue of its peculiarity, requires bioconservatives to reconsider their way of understanding and applying the notions of “therapy” and “enhancement.” More in particular, I show that, because a non-arbitrary and value-free notion of “therapy” cannot be applied to the case of love, bioconservatives have the burden of either providing some new criterion that could be used for drawing a line between permissible and impermissible medicalization, or demonstrating that under no circumstances—including the cases in which love is already acknowledged to require medical intervention—can love fall within the domain of medicine.
Keywords Enhancement  Therapy  Normality  bioconservatism  love
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,044
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Medicalization of Love.Brian D. Earp, Anders Sandberg & Julian Savulescu - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (3):323-336.
The Medicalization of Love and Narrow and Broad Conceptions of Human Well-Being.Sven Nyholm - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (3):337-346.
Bioconservatism, Bioliberalism, and Repugnance.Rebecca Roache & Steve Clarke - 2009 - Monash Bioethics Review 28 (1):04.1-04.21.
The Moral Significance of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in Human Genetics.David B. Resnik - 2000 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9 (3):365-377.
Love Troubles: Human Attachment and Biomedical Enhancements.Sven Nyholm - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2):190-202.
Reproductive Choice, Enhancement, and the Moral Continuum Argument.E. Malmqvist - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (1):41-54.
Integration of Cognitive and Moral Enhancement.Vojin Rakic - 2012 - Filozofija I Društvo 23 (2):91-103.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-06-18

Total views
42 ( #247,904 of 2,433,582 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #467,718 of 2,433,582 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes