I'm not saying medicalization = improving people. What I'm saying is most solutions that are pejoratively called medicalization probably improve people in their opinion. From your post I would taboo "medical", "medicalization", "normal" and "big pharma". Keep in mind that medicine is optional and patients have different perceptions of what they would call improvement. I think they should have as many options as possible and safe.
It's neither singular nor evil. However it is a collection of entities which have certain goals (which mostly involve profits) and incentives to pursue these goals.
I was unfair and I agree with this. They also compete with each other and with regulating mechanisms. Therefore I think "big pharma" is a lazy and misleading expression.
From your post I would taboo "medical", "medicalization", "normal" and "big pharma"
Sure.
The trend to consider certain conditions and psychological states "diseases" or "illnesses" (which implies biological causality) is bad because:
It narrows the range of what's considered acceptable human variation. Consider e.g. a grumpy guy. Would it be good if he were to be diagnosed with the illness of grumpiness (with associated social costs) and prescribed a pill for that?
It assumes biological causal
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.