The medical model has long been the dominant model of our time for providing health services. It has the most power, the most money, and the largest following. Essentially it has these core components: a disorder, a scientific explanation for that disorder, a mechanism of change, healing actions, and specificity. The disorder is whatever the problem or complaint is that puts the patient in need of services. The scientific explanation is the etiology of that problem according to relevant research or theory. The mechanism of change is whatever strategy will be used to solve the problem. Healing actions are the specific interventions applied to the patient. Specificity is the inference that the healing actions are what cures the patient. These comprise the core of the medical model.
In the realm of medicine the strategy used is applying medical knowledge, and the healing actions are the actual treatments given, but in psychology the strategy is the theoretical approach of a given counselor, and the healing actions are the specific interventions used. In medicine the interventions are physiochemical, but in psychology the interventions are psychological. Both have incidental, or placebo, effects that are psychological. This poses somewhat of a problem for psychology as both the specific interventions and the incidental effects are psychological. Perhaps the medical model is not the best framework for psychology.
Nevertheless, psychology has adopted the medical model, which means it has had to fight for turf in the medical arena. In the 1990s psychopharmacology started to assert that its treatments were more effective and more proven. In response, psychology had to prove the effectiveness of its own treatments, which led to manualized treatments and contributed greatly to the thrust now known as evidence-based practice.
In the medical model everything must be proven, and since psychology has professionally fallen into this model, it leads to specific treatments having to be documented and then proven through research, as if they were a new drug being tested.
In the realm of medicine the strategy used is applying medical knowledge, and the healing actions are the actual treatments given, but in psychology the strategy is the theoretical approach of a given counselor, and the healing actions are the specific interventions used. In medicine the interventions are physiochemical, but in psychology the interventions are psychological. Both have incidental, or placebo, effects that are psychological. This poses somewhat of a problem for psychology as both the specific interventions and the incidental effects are psychological. Perhaps the medical model is not the best framework for psychology.
Nevertheless, psychology has adopted the medical model, which means it has had to fight for turf in the medical arena. In the 1990s psychopharmacology started to assert that its treatments were more effective and more proven. In response, psychology had to prove the effectiveness of its own treatments, which led to manualized treatments and contributed greatly to the thrust now known as evidence-based practice.
In the medical model everything must be proven, and since psychology has professionally fallen into this model, it leads to specific treatments having to be documented and then proven through research, as if they were a new drug being tested.
And the concept of proof presupposes an open mind in the one who is doing the proving.
ReplyDeleteIf the proof-tester is unwilling to accept the efficacy of divine intervention, then he will come up with another explanation for life-change that comes from the Holy Spirit. IMHO, this predisposition sadly cripples most of modern medicine - especially psychology.
I'm impressed by your willingness to speak so personally and intimately on this topic.
ReplyDelete