Wstęp. Biomedycyna, reprodukcja, antropologia

<p>For centuries, medicine aimed to treat abnormalities. But today normality itself is open to medical modification. Equipped with a new molecular understanding of bodies and minds, and new techniques for manipulating basic life processes at the level of molecules, cells, and genes, medicine now seeks to manage human vital processes. <i>The Politics of Life Itself</i> offers a much-needed examination of recent developments in the life sciences and biomedicine that have led to the widespread politicization of medicine, human life, and biotechnology.<br><br><br> Avoiding the hype of popular science and the pessimism of most social science, Nikolas Rose analyzes contemporary molecular biopolitics, examining developments in genomics, neuroscience, pharmacology, and psychopharmacology and the ways they have affected racial politics, crime control, and psychiatry. Rose analyzes the transformation of biomedicine from the practice of healing to the government of life; the new emphasis on treating disease susceptibilities rather than disease; the shift in our understanding of the patient; the emergence of new forms of medical activism; the rise of biocapital; and the mutations in biopower. He concludes that these developments have profound consequences for who we think we are, and who we want to be.</p>

Social scientists and other analysts have written about medicalization since at least the 1970s. Most of these studies depict the medical profession, interprofessional or organizational contests, or social movements and interest groups as the prime movers toward medicalization. This article contends that changes in medicine in the past two decades are altering the medicalization process. Using several case examples, I argue that three major changes in medical knowledge and organization have engendered an important shift in the engines that drive medicalization: biotechnology (especially the pharmaceutical industry and genetics), consumers, and managed care. Doctors are still gatekeepers for medical treatment, but their role has become more subordinate in the expansion or contraction of medicalization. Medicalization is now more driven by commercial and market interests than by professional claims-makers. The definitional center of medicalization remains constant, but the availability of new pharmaceutical and potential genetic treatments are increasingly drivers for new medical categories. This requires a shift in the sociological focus examining medicalization for the twenty-first century.