Skip to content

Case report, 2026

Should PMS and PMDD be treated as medical conditions?

This paper doesn't say yes or no. Instead, the author creates a way to think through this difficult question. The key is asking: Could medicine help? And does it actually help in real life?

Early or limited evidence Not applicable - this is philosophical analysis

What they did

The author examines different views on when something should be treated as a medical condition. They develop a new framework for evaluating this question. They use PMS and PMDD as an example to test their framework.

What they found

The author proposes a two-step approach. First, it considers whether medicines could help with suffering and wellbeing. Second, it looks at whether the medicine actually achieves this in people's real lives, not just in theory.

What it means for you

This is a philosophical discussion about how doctors should decide what to treat as a medical condition. It helps with thinking through hard questions but doesn't tell us whether specific PMS or PMDD treatments actually work. The main limit is that this is reasoning and theory, not a study of actual patients or treatments.

About the study

Original title
How to deal with controversies in the evaluation of medicalization: a case study of PMS and PMDD
Authors
Prince I
Journal
Medicine, health care, and philosophy
Year
2026
Study design
Case report
What was tested
None - proposed framework
Open access
Yes
Original abstract

Medicalization has become a key topic in contemporary philosophy of medicine. Discussions about what should be medicalized, what kinds of medicalization are desirable, and how specific cases ought to be evaluated increasingly shape debates about the boundaries and responsibilities of medicine. The medicalization debate is increasingly shaped by pragmatic considerations that draw attention to the complex interactions between mind and body and to the role of social and environmental conditions in shaping health. From this perspective, the value of medical interventions and resources lies in their capacity to contribute to broader goals such as alleviating human suffering and promoting individual and collective well-being. While pragmatic approaches address several shortcomings of stricter, often essentialist frameworks, their existing analytical tools remain limited when it comes to evaluating controversial cases of medicalization. This paper examines these limitations and develops a refined pragmatic framework for distinguishing good from problematic medicalization. Using the case study of the pharmaceutical treatment of behavioral and mood-related symptoms associated with premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), I propose a two-step approach. This two-step approach acknowledges the complexities of pragmatic medicalization and distinguishes between the potential usefulness of medicines to achieve pragmatic goals and the realization of this potential in actual practice.

Reproduced under CC-BY.

Topics