On 3 December Stephen Black wrote [snip]: >Perhaps doctors don't need to distinguish between them >because they only use one of these approaches (not really >true, as many dabble in psychodynamic explanation). But >in psychology some of us use one of these approaches and >others, the other. For example, a psychologist using the true > medical model might propose that schizophrenia is caused >by a gene on chromosome 7. Another psychologist using the >quasi-medical model might propose that schizophrenia is caused >by a defective personality resulting from maternal rejection.
Surely the situation is not as straightforward as this passage of Stephen's seems to imply. But I suspect he was only putting it this way for didactic purposes. At any rate, I doubt Stephen will disagree, in general terms, with what I write in (a) below. At root I'm concerned about the idea that someone might contend that "schizophrenia is *caused* by a gene on chromosome x". (a) In a mental disorder such as schizophrenia there may be (almost certainly are) a number of factors, e.g., genetic propensity, occurrences in the womb before birth, adverse life experiences, regular ingesting of "recreational" drugs in susceptible individuals, and so on. (b) Most people who seek out psychotherapy do so to relieve symptoms that may be (relatively) less clear-cut than in the case of severe mental conditions like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. These may range from severe depression, which may be closer to the kind of situation in the above cases, to more nebulous emotional/behavioural symptoms. In the latter cases there are no generally accepted views about the origins of the problems, nor, of course, of the means of relieving them. Explanations may come in various shapes and sizes, and it is surely one of the tasks of academic psychologists to critically examine such explanations for their plausibility, and, perhaps more important, the extent to which they are genuinely evidence-based. I'm not clear that mental/emotional disorders, at least of the more nebulous type, lend themselves to discussion in terms of "medical models". Better, to my mind, to critically examine each attempt at explanation, or more general explanatory system, on its merits. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/1_gesamt_en.html ------------- >Fri, 03 Dec 2004 >Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: APA President-elect (now "medical model") >Body: On 3 Dec 2004 Rick Froman wrote: > On 3 Dec 2004 at 20:25, Rick Froman wrote: > > > > You won't see people in medicine using the term "medical model" to > > refer to what they do. It would be like hydrologists talking about > > using the hydraulic model. The medical model is a model for > > psychologists in that it is a metaphor or a model for what they do. > > Which is also why it isn't necessary to refer to a "quasi-medical > > model". The word "model" carries the meaning of being a metaphor. The > > extent to which the metaphor is effective or useful can be argued but > > it is only a model. > > Well, possibly the term "model" is inappropriate for what's being > discussed, although that's the designation it's always given. What > we're talking about are the procedures by which the practitioners of > a discipline operate. For what I'm calling the true medical model, > you observe symptoms to arrive at a diagnosis of a real underlying > (structural) cause. For what I'm calling the quasi-medical model, you > observe symptoms to arrive at a diagnosis of a metaphoric, > hypothetical, imaginary ("psychic") cause. > > Perhaps doctors don't need to distinguish between them because they > only use one of these approaches (not really true, as many dabble in > psychodynamic explanation). But in psychology some of us use one of > these approaches and others, the other. For example, a psychologist > using the true medical model might propose that schizophrenia is > caused by a gene on chromosome 7. Another psychologist using the > quasi-medical model might propose that schizophrenia is caused by a > defective personality resulting from maternal rejection. > > I think it's important to keep these approaches separate. I accept > the use of the medical model in psychology, but not the quasi- > medical. There's also a third model, the behavioral, which says that > behavioral symptoms are not merely signs of an underlying cause but > are the problem itself. I also accept this approach, which is > compatible with the use of the true medical model. > > Stephen > > ___________________________________________________ > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 > Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 > Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
