Skip to main content Accessibility help

The Medicalization of Love



Pharmaceuticals or other emerging technologies could be used to enhance (or diminish) feelings of lust, attraction, and attachment in adult romantic partnerships. Although such interventions could conceivably be used to promote individual (and couple) well-being, their widespread development and/or adoption might lead to the ‘medicalization’ of human love and heartache—for some, a source of a serious concern. In this essay, we argue that the medicalization of love need not necessarily be problematic, on balance, but could plausibly be expected to have either good or bad consequences depending upon how it unfolds. By anticipating some of the specific ways in which these technologies could yield unwanted outcomes, bioethicists and others can help to direct the course of love’s medicalization—should it happen to occur—more toward the ‘good’ side than the ‘bad.’

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Medicalization of Love
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Medicalization of Love
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Medicalization of Love
      Available formats


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (, which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Hide All


1. Fisher, HE, Aron, A, Brown, LL. Romantic love: A mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2006;361(1476):2173–86.

2. Young, LJ. Being human: Love: Neuroscience reveals all. Nature 2009;457(7226):148.

3. Earp, BD, Sandberg, A, Savulescu, J. Natural selection, childrearing, and the ethics of marriage (and divorce): Building a case for the neuroenhancement of human relationships. Philosophy & Technology 2012;25(4):561–87.

4. Earp, BD, Wudarczyk, OA, Sandberg, A, Savulescu, J. If I could just stop loving you: Anti-love biotechnology and the ethics of a chemical breakup. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):317.

5. Lynch, Z. Neurotechnology and society (2010–2060). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2004;1013(1):229–33.

6. Savulescu, J, Sandberg, A. Neuroenhancement of love and marriage: The chemicals between us. Neuroethics 2008;1(1):3144.

7. Earp, BD. Love and other drugs. Philosophy Now 2012;91:1417.

8. Wudarczyk, OA, Earp, BD, Guastella, A, Savulescu, J. Could intranasal oxytocin be used to enhance relationships? Research imperatives, clinical policy, and ethical considerations. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2013;26(5):474–84.

9. See note 3, Earp et al. 2012.

10. See note 4, Earp et al. 2013.

11. Gupta, K. Anti-love biotechnologies: Integrating considerations of the social. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):1819.

12. Enck, G. An error theory of biotechnology and the ethics of chemical breakups: It is the reasons, not the pharmaceuticals, that are important in defending against perilous love. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):32–4.

13. Marchant, GE, Stevens, YA. Involuntary exposures to love-enhancing or anti-love agents. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):26–7.

14. Garasic, MD. Anti-love biotechnology: Was it not better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):22–3.

15. Boesch, B. AThomistic account of anti-love biotechnology. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):30–1.

16. Earp, BD, Sandberg, A, Kahane, G, Savulescu, J. When is diminishment a form of enhancement? Rethinking the “enhancement debates” in biomedical ethics. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 2014;8(12):18.

17. See note 11, Gupta 2013.

18. Epright, MC, Waller, S. When love hurts children: Controlling the feelings of minors. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):28–9.

19. Wahlert, L. Anti-love or anti-“lifestyle”: Historical reflections on reparative therapies for homosexuality. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):36–8.

20. McArthur, N. The heart outright: A comment on “If I could just stop loving you.” The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):24–5.

21. Earp, BD, Sandberg, A, Savulescu, J. Brave new love: The threat of high-tech “conversion” therapy and the bio-oppression of sexual minorities. AJOB Neuroscience 2014;5(1):412.

22. See note 6, Savulescu, Sandberg 2008.

23. See note 3, Earp et al. 2012.

24. See note 4, Earp et al. 2013.

25. See note 8, Wudarczyk et al. 2013.

26. Insel, TR, Young, LJ. The neurobiology of attachment. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2001;2(2):129–36.

27. See note 26, Insel, Young 2001.

28. See note 8, Wudarczyk et al. 2013.

29. See note 4, Earp et al. 2013.

30. Davis JE. Medicalization, social control, and the relief of suffering. In: Cockerham WC, ed. The New Blackwell Companion to Medical Sociology. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010:211–41.

31. Quoted in Parens, E. On good and bad forms of medicalization. Bioethics 2013;27(1):2835, at 33. Note that the paper by Evans has not yet been published, so we must rely on Erik Parens’s reading of the passage. However, we wish to point out that, as quoted, it is unclear whether the claim that “we can all fear the medicalization of love” is one that Evans himself would endorse, or whether, as a sociologist, he is intending only to illustrate the sort of complaint that might be raised by critics of medicalization generally. Thus, our argument should be interpreted as being a response to the claim (and the sorts of worries that we think might be lying behind it), rather than as a rebuttal to Evans.

32. Kramer PD. Listening to Prozac. New York: Viking Press; 1993, at 1249.

33. Rapley M, Moncrieff J, Dillon J, eds. De-medicalizing Misery. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.

34. Baughman Jr FA. The ADHD fraud: How Psychiatry Makes “Patients” of Normal Children. Victoria: Trafford; 2006.

35. Timimi S. Pathological Child Psychiatry and the Medicalization of Childhood. East Sussex: Brunner-Routledge; 2002.

36. See note 31, Parens 2013, at 33.

37. Traupmann J, Hatfield E. Love and its effect on mental and physical health. In: Fogel R, Hatfield E, Kiesler S, Shanas E, eds. Aging: Stability and Change in the Family. New York: Academic Press; 1981:253–74.

38. Pienta, AM, Hayward, MD, Jenkins, KR. Health consequences of marriage for the retirement years. Journal of Family Issues 2000;21:559–86.

39. Holt-Lunstad, J, Smith, TB, Layton, JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine 2010;7(7), e1000316:20.

40. Jaremka LM, Fagundes CP, Peng J. Loneliness promotes inflammation during acute stress. Psychological Science 2013;(Early Access):1–9.

41. Wilson, C, Oswald, AJ. How does marriage affect physical and psychological health? A survey of the longitudinal evidence. IZA Discussion Paper 2005;1619:130.

42. See note 8, Wudarczyk et al. 2013, at 482.

43. Though note that MDMA (Ecstasy) was used in the 1980s in couples’ counseling, and that scientific interest in its therapeutic potential has recently been rekindled: Sessa B. Is there a case for MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in the UK? Journal of Psychopharmacology 2007;21(2):220–4. There is also anecdotal evidence (Hutchinson, personal correspondence) that MDMA is currently being used, albeit illicitly, by a network of relationship therapists in Canada, although such research cannot be published. Oxytocin is also being used currently by some counselors: Boesveld S. Chemical seduction: How “love drugs” may one day help couples save failing relationships. National Post 2013 Mar 30; available at (last accessed 19 May 2014).

44. Abraham defines the term “pharmaceuticalization” as “the process by which social, behavioural or bodily conditions are treated or deemed to be in need of treatment, with medical drugs by doctors or patients”: Abraham J. Partial progress: Governing the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS, 1948–2008. Journal of Health, Politics, Law and Policy 2009;34:100. See also Abraham, J. Pharmaceuticalization of society in context: Theoretical, empirical and health dimensions. Sociology 2010;44(4):603–22.

45. See note 31, Parens 2013, at 34.

46. Gottman JM. Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations. Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press; 1979.

47. See note 8, Wudarczyk et al. 2013.

48. Bartz JA, Zaki J, Bolger N, Hollander E, Ludwig NN, Kolevzon A, et al. Oxytocin selectively improves empathic accuracy. Psychological Science 2010;21(10):1426–8.

49. Ditzen, B, Schaer, M, Gabriel, B, Bodenmann, G, Ehlert, U, Heinrichs, M. Intranasal oxytocin increases positive communication and reduces cortisol levels during couple conflict. Biological Psychiatry 2009;65(9):728–31.

50. Conrad P. The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press; 2008.

51. See note 50, Conrad 2008, at 148.

52. Armstrong, D. The rise of surveillance medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness 1995;17(3):393404.

53. See note 50, Conrad 2008, at 149–51.

54. See note 50, Conrad 2008, at 152.

55. Wootton B. Social Science and Social Pathology. New York: Macmillan; 1959.

56. Bancroft, J. The medicalization of female sexual dysfunction: The need for caution. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2002;31(5):451–5.

57. Bancroft, J. Biological factors in human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research 2002;39(1):1521.

58. Houppert K. The Curse: Confronting the Last Unmentionable Taboo: Menstruation. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 1999.

59. Tiefer, L. The medicalization of sexuality: Conceptual, normative, and professional issues. Annual Review of Sex Research 1996;7(1):252–82.

60. See note 33, Rapley et al. 2011.

61. See note 31, Parens 2013, at 30.

62. Parens E. Toward a more fruitful debate about enhancement. In: Savulescu J, Bostrom N, eds. Human Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009, at 184.

63. Purdy, L. Medicalization, medical necessity, and feminist medicine. Bioethics 2001;15(3):256.

64. See note 31, Parens 2013, at 33.

65. Synofzik, M. Ethically justified, clinically applicable criteria for physician decision-making in psychopharmacological enhancement. Neuroethics 2009;2(2):90.

66. It is instructive to note how ‘lovesickness’ emerged as a medicalized condition in the middle ages, with physical causes and treatments: Wack MF. Lovesickness in the Middle Ages: The Viaticum and Its Commentaries. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1990. Although this might be a prime example of medical social control, it also shows how mechanistic explanations in terms of mental faculties and the four humors did not lead to a medicalization of everything, despite being seen as explanations for much of human behavior, emotion, and thought.

67. See note 21, Earp et al. 2014.

68. See note 59, Tiefer 1996.

69. Gupta K. Protecting sexual diversity: Rethinking the use of neurotechnological interventions to alter sexuality. AJOB Neuroscience 2012;3(3):26.

70. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (iDSM-IV-TR). 4th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2000.

71. Savulescu J, Earp BD. Neuroreductionism about sex and love. Think: A Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy; forthcoming.

72. Kirmayer LJ, Gold I. Re-socializing psychiatry. In: Choudhury S, Slaby J, eds. Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012:305–30.

73. See note 65, Synofzik 2009, at 90.

74. Goldacre B. Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. London: Fourth Estate; 2012.

75. Conrad, P. The shifting engines of medicalization. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 2005;46(1):314.

76. See note 30, Davis 2010, at 216.

77. See note 69, Gupta 2012.

78. See note 16, Earp et al. 2014, at 4–12.

79. Earp BD, Wudarczyk OA, Foddy B, Savulescu J. Addicted to love: What is love addiction and when should it be treated? Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology; forthcoming.

80. See note 30, Davis 2010.

81. See note 50, Conrad 2008, at 152.

82. See note 50, Conrad 2008, at 152.

83. Lehrer J. Depression’s upside. New York Times Sunday Magazine 2010 Feb 28:42. Note that this example comes from Parens 2013 (see note 31).

84. See note 31, Parens 2013, at 31.

85. Aurenque, D, McDougall, CW. Amantes sunt amentes: Pathologizing love and the meaning of suffering. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):35.

86. See note 63, Purdy 2001, at 255.

87. See note 63, Purdy 2001, at 255.

88. See note 11, Gupta 2013, at 19.

89. See note 65, Synofzik 2009, at 95.

90. Savulescu J, Sandberg A, Kahane G. Well-being and enhancement. In: Savulescu J, ter Meulen R, Kahane G, eds. Enhancing Human Capacities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011:3–18.

91. Kass, LR. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington, DC: President’s Council on Bioethics; 2003, at 227.

92. See note 8, Wudarczyk et al. 2013.

93. Juth N. Enhancement, autonomy, and authenticity. In: Savulescu et al. 2011 (see note 90):36.

94. Another angle on the matter comes from Guy Kahane’s recent essay, “Reasons to Feel, Reasons to Take Pills.” Kahane argues that biochemical modification of certain feelings may be morally permissible if it is the case that one ought to feel differently from how one does in fact feel—due, perhaps, to the sometimes irrational nature of human emotional life. Kahane G. Reasons to feel, reasons to take pills. In: Savulescu et al. 2011 (see note 90). Although parent-child love is not the focus of this essay, one argument that has been raised in the literature is that parents ought to love their children: Liao S. Parental love pills: Some ethical considerations. Bioethics 2011;25(9):489–94. Hence if love drugs could help toward this end, they might be worth considering. On the other side of the equation, romantic passion is also capable of causing people to feel things that they ought not to feel. An example we have already discussed is the profound love and attachment an individual might feel for her domestic abuser, preventing her from ending the relationship. If anti-love biotechnology could help break such a dangerous attachment bond, then its use could be permissible in some instances; see note 4, Earp et al. 2013.

95. Wordsworth W. The Major Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1798/2000.

96. Dawkins R. Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2000, at x.

97. Fromm E. Art of Loving. New York: Perennial Classics; 2000.

98. See note 97, Fromm 2000.

99. Feynman R. The pleasure of finding things out. BBC [Interview]; 1981; clip available at (last accessed 19 May 2014).

Thanks are due to Marion Godman, Andrew Buskell, Alessa Colaianni, Tomi Kushner, and members of the HPS Philosophy Workshop at the University of Cambridge for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Please note that this work was supported in part by a Wellcome Trust grant, #086041/Z/08/Z.

Neuroethics Now welcomes articles addressing the ethical application of neuroscience in research and patient care, as well as its impact on society.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
  • ISSN: 0963-1801
  • EISSN: 1469-2147
  • URL: /core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed