Ruth et al.: As a number of authors, including Paul Meehl and Paul Blaney, have noted, the term "medical model" actually refers to a large number of quite different models, many of which bear little or no conceptual relation to each other. A few years ago, I intended to begin work on an invited paper on the topic, which I never found time to write (one of these days...). But my own admittedly informal survey of the literature and of my colleagues revealed the following different - yet widespread - meanings of the term "medical model." I'd like to argue that most of these meanings are so logically disparate as to suggest that the term is logically inchoate.

(1) A model that implies biological etiology of psychological disorders
(2) A model that implies that psychological disorders should be treated biologically
(3) A model that implies biological mediation of psychological disorders (in reality, this is nothing more or less than mind-body monism)
(4) A model that implies that physicians or other medically trained personnel should treat psychological disorders
(5) A model that implies that psychological disorders differ categorically/qualitatively from normality (a strange definition given that many medical disorders, e.g., Type II diabetes and essential hypertension, wouldn't fit this definition either)
(6) A model that focuses on psychological abnormality rather than psychological health
(7) A model that embraces the notion that the domain of psychopathology can be "carved" into meaningful entities described by diagnostic labels.
(8) A model that posits a strong/direct linkage between diagnosis and treatment


I'd argue that at the very least that we be explicit about which, if any, of these quite different models we are referring to when we use the term "medical model." ....Scott

FRICKLE, RUTH wrote:

"There is this split in the APA between those who believe that practice should be guided by data and those who believe that practice should be guided by anecdote."

I've been taught and teach my students that there's no such thing as
"exact science" and that the data really don't represent the individual,
they represent the aggregate. Clinicians struggle with this every day.
I agree that ethical clinicians should steer clear of oddities like
hypno-regression, or EMDR but to say that they are relying on anecdote
when they drift from strict adherence to the data, is unfair.


"There are more practitioners than academics, so it really would take a wholesale exodus which is highly unlikely.
What we really need is a medical model: some strong contingencies requiring scientific support for clinical practices."


The medical model is rife with problems. In an effort to deal with the
shortcomings of the model, it seems to me that physicians work with the
data in mind but bend and flex in response to the uniqueness of each
case. In the process they undoubtedly use anecdote or sheer guesswork
to help their patients.


If anyone is a clinician out there, and has been able to successfully
work with a wide range of clients & their issues with strict adherence
to the data, I'd would genuinely be interested in hearing about your
experiences.

Ruth Frickle
Department of Psychology
Highline Community College
Des Moines, WA  98198-9800
(206) 878-3710 ext. 3111
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:43 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: Re: APA President-elect



There is this split in the APA between those who believe that practice should be guided by data and those who believe that practice should be guided by anecdote.
I'll leave it to the list members to decide which group has become dominant, but I'm letting my membership lapse.




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Department of Psychology, Room 206 Emory University
532 N. Kilgo Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30322


(404) 727-1125 (phone)
(404) 727-0372 (FAX)

Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html

The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice:

www.srmhp.org


The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him – he is always doing both.

- Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified)





---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to