At 3:35 PM -0500 12/3/04, Scott Lilienfeld wrote:
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
Scott-- Actually, I was referring to yet another aspect of current medical practice (that psychology is only beginning to approximate): the formulation of a repertoire of clinical practices of empirically demonstrated safety and effectiveness, together with sanctions for deviating from these practices without very strong support.
BTW -- your book is a good start in this direction -- I may finish it some day ;-) !
--
"No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." -H. L. Mencken
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
