Mental illness medical model

Once people have made the fundamental decision to continue on medications, the question becomes how best to live with their new partner how to reach accommodations that will make the relationship healthy and satisfying. The shift in emphasis from whether to how best to maintain a medication relationship solidifies their investment in the biomedical model of mental illness and its claim to appropriate treatments. While many may still dream about a future free of pills, by this point they have likely made a lifelong commitment to drug therapy. The decisive moment comes with the realization that I ve accepted now that this is the way I am. This [using medications] is what I ll need to do for the rest of my life. ... 

The gradual rediscovery of the medical model of mental illnesses, associated with research into pathological anatomical causes. 

It is clear that these trends are contradictory to some extent. A spatially segregated patient cannot lead a normal life in society. The medical model of mental illnesses, with its objective of detecting and, where applicable, correcting anatomical or functional disorders in the patient s body, contradicts a socially orientated concept of the illness underpinning treatment by educational methods. Modem psychiatry has grown up with these contradictions and still lives with them today (Rosen, 1969). 

In the earliest research with DET and the related dialkyltryptamines, the chemistry of metabolism was studied for any clues that could explain the activity of these materials. It must be remembered that this was in the heyday of the concept of psychotomimesis, the search for drugs that would imitate the psychotic state. What an appealing concept, that there might be a drug that could produce the syndrome of mental illness and thus be an accepted model for designing some treatment for it. There was a delicious search made at that time (the 1950 s) for names that could be given to these remarkable substances that would obscure any spiritual or positive aspects, so that one could present one s findings into the orthodox medical literature. 

In the late 1800s psychiatry was clearly rooted in the medical model and the neurology of the day. Psychiatrists believed, almost exclusively, that mental illness could be attributed to some sort of biologic disturbance. The earliest attempts to approach the understanding of mental illness in this era involved two main areas of investigation. 

Other advances in the field were antianxiety (or anxiol> tic) medications, such as meprobamate (which also was used as a muscle relaxant), and antidepressant medications, such as monoamine oxidase inhibitors (fvIAOls) and tricyclic antidepressants. Another drug that received renewed attention was LSD. Because of the psychotic-like effects produced by LSD, researchers used it to create a model psychosis to study (to date with limited success) possible etiological factors contributing to mental illness. They could also treat the LSD-created symptoms with psychotherapeutic drugs. 

To illustrate in depth the ways in which Institutional Psychiatry serves the function of stigmatizing individuals as mentally ill, thus producing psychiatric scapegoats, 1 shall review some representative medical, journalistic, legal, and psychiatric writings on the nature of mental illness, psychiatric care, and mental health services. I shall begin with the views of an important authority in public health, a discipline often taken as the model of modern socially oriented psychiatry, and work my way toward specifically psychiatric contributions. 

The key to successful treatment is the adoption of an illness mans ement and recovery model. With appropriate and effective medication and a wide range of services tailored to meet their needs, most people who five with serious mental illness can significantly reduce its impact and find a satisfying measure of achievement and independence. 

Try to use the medical model of mental illness as only one of many different ways of seeing someone. Never put someone in a diagnostic box and then ascribe everything they do to that box. The box doesn t exist - we made it up. 

I am not the only researcher to find miasmas and the influence model useful for describing present-day ill health. In addition to its current use in some forms of homeopathy, in 1965 Bernard Bloom, an employee of the National Institute of Public Health, wrote an article calling for practitioners in mental health to consider the miasma model of disease over the medical model , a variation on what I have been calling the particle model (Bloom... 

---