Lim Izaak T
Early in Life Mental Health Service, Monash Health, 268 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, 268 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, 3150, Australia.
J Bioeth Inq. 2025 Sep 22. doi: 10.1007/s11673-025-10460-5.
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.
婴儿心理健康领域受到了一些人的怀疑,这些人质疑心理健康专业人士在这一领域的作用。在本文中,我将基于医学化研究的批判传统,思考对将医学管辖权扩展至婴儿期和育儿领域可能存在的伦理异议。在本文的第一部分,我将特别关注医学化对婴儿及其家庭的三个潜在有害后果——医学社会控制的扩大、人类痛苦的个体化以及人类行为和差异的病理化。在第二部分,我将为婴儿心理健康提供伦理辩护,回应基于医学化的批判所提出的异议。我将在第三部分得出结论,医学化并不总是对婴儿及其家庭有害,而且,就婴儿心理健康而言,医学化与婴儿对追求美好生活的基本条件的权利主张之间存在相互促进的关系。