Abstract
Prescribing antidepressants and benzodiazepines for patients with emotional distress is a common practice in primary healthcare that raises certain ethical questions. This paper has three aims. First, to describe the motivations that lead general practitioners to prescribe antidepressants and benzodiazepines in these cases. Second, to reflect on the ethical implications of such prescriptions based on the four principles of biomedical ethics defined by Beauchamp and Childress (autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice). Finally, to propose some recommendations for the mitigation of the medicalization of emotional distress in primary healthcare. Results show that general practitioners seek to alleviate patients' suffering but their prescribing decisions are influenced by some uncertainties in clinical judgement as well as by systemic factors (patients' pressures, time constraints, and unawareness of resources). Ethical issues arise in relation to the potential for dependence, the questionable long-term benefit of prescriptions, the uncritical fulfillment of patients' expectations, and the impediment to address underlying social issues or to develop patients' capabilities. Clinical consultation should be founded on effective communication between doctors and patients and a holistic care approach that acknowledges the psychological, social, and existential dimensions should replace a merely symptomatic approach. Some strategies to mitigate medicalization are proposed: the promotion of regular monitoring visits with patients and multidisciplinary collaboration, the enhancement of physicians' knowledge about non-pharmacological interventions, as well as the establishment of an evidence-base for the effectiveness of these drugs in the primary healthcare setting.