One approach developed in the 1950’s was the biomedical model. Although this renowned approach was valued for many years, towards the end of the 20th century it lost its charm and made way for fresh ideas to arise. Closely behind this model emerged the biopsychosocial model that identified more than biological factors. This approach embraced psychological and social factors as puzzle pieces contributing to the main cause of a disorder, and how to best treat it. Although both approaches contribute to society and social growth, the one that will be the center of focus in this blog is the biomedical model.
One place many people have been is the hospital. After all most of us are born in one. With that being said when one enters the world a series of tests are performed to ensure the safety and health of the child. Vaccinations and a plethora of machinery are designed for such purpose, and doctors are suggested to be competent beings capable of deciphering what needs to happen. It is safe to say that certain things require more than words. If you were born and not breathing would a doctor saying the words “it’s okay, breathe” in a soothing tone be enough to elicit this reaction? Of course not! Instead the doctor would administer CPR or connect the child to a breathing machine among other alternatives. Words alone would not solve the problem and the biomedical standpoint also focuses on one solution in a sense. Furthermore, what if this same child three years later was not very social and rarely spoke. Based on the biomedical approach, the assumption that there may be a serious condition and treatment is required such as one for a physical disease would most likely follow. However this child is suffering from autism yet this approach does not give way to this realization. This is where problems arose towards the departure from this method.
One of the biggest downsides to the biomedical model was that “it failed to account completely for the fact that not everyone who is exposed to the same virus will acquire a particular disease; furthermore, even when people do get sick, there are large differences among individuals in terms of the severity of symptoms they experience and how they respond to treatment” (Gruman, 2017). This shines clarity on why another model was required. However, this particular statement seems to proof itself as a societal problem currently in our nation. This is because this concept is similar to the ongoing pandemic where symptoms vary, and some will acquire the disease, while others may not. These individual differences such as strong immune systems verse weak ones can determine two completely different outcomes. This is why simply focusing on biological factors would not be a reliable measure since there is no consistency and would not account for the norm. There is no single golden answer for all, and especially is not what is being witnessed with COVID-19.
References:
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-4833-6973-0
Picture from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Loay_Abdelnour/publication/323396284/figure/fig1/AS:598265657556998@1519649056896/Biomedical-model-of-disease.png