This article from Brett J. Deacon (University of Wyoming) was published in 2013 in the Clinical Psychology Review. The article’s abstract says:
“The biomedical model posits that mental disorders are brain diseases and emphasizes pharmacological treatment to target presumed biological abnormalities. A biologically-focused approach to science, policy, and practice has dominated the American healthcare system for more than three decades. During this time, the use of psychiatric medications has sharply increased and mental disorders have become commonly regarded as brain diseases caused by chemical imbalances that are corrected with disease-speciﬁc drugs.
However, despite widespread faith in the potential of neuroscience to revolutionize mental health practice, the biomedical model era has been characterized by a broad lack of clinical innovation and poor mental health outcomes.
In addition, the biomedical paradigm has profoundly affected clinical psychology via the adoption of drug trial methodology in psychotherapy research.
Although this approach has spurred the development of empirically supported psychological treatments for numerous mental disorders, it has neglected treatment process, inhibited treatment innovation and dissemination, and divided the ﬁeld along scientist and practitioner lines.
The neglected biopsychosocial model represents an appealing alternative to the biomedical approach, and an honest and public dialog about the validity and utility of the biomedical paradigm is urgently needed.”
The article’s highlights include:
- This commentary reviews the validity and consequences of the biomedical model.
- Drug treatments and biological theories are predominant in the United States.
- The biomedical era has witnessed little clinical innovation and worsening outcomes.
- The biomedical model has powerfully shaped psychotherapy research and dissemination.
- Dialog is needed on the utility of the biomedical vs. biopsychosocial approaches.
To read the article itself, click here.