A Critical Analysis of the Validity, Utility & Effects of the Biomedical Model

[Luc]

Mad in America May 17, 2013

MIA reader/commenter Brett Deacon’s article in the prominent Clinical Psychology Review says that despite “widespread faith in the potential of neuroscience”, the biomedical era has produced poor mental health outcomes. He calls for an open and critical dialogue of the model, asking whether it is ethical to propound the “chemical imbalance story” in order to increase the credibility of antidepressant medication, when there isn’t “even one instance in which neurobiology alone can explain a psychological experience,” and when the model has failed to produce two of its prime objectives; the reduction of stigma, and good long-term outcomes. He calls for critical examination of the biomedical model’s effects, and mentions the vigorous dialogue taking place on madinamerica.com, among other venues.

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/...medical-model/

[Junior]

My concern is that stigma for genuine mental illness will be increased when the current "chemical imbalance" theory is thrown out. Not that I think it is right. Just way too simplistic. And not empirically proven. Meanwhile, millions of people are being given powerful psychotropics - and having years of their lives ruined - when they never needed them in the first place.

Great article. I only skim read it but great stuff. Thanks Luc.

[Luc]

Cont.

It's a long text - for those who might be interested in it;

http://www.uwyo.edu/psychology/_file...commentary.pdf

This excerpt says it all;

Several recent NIMH clinical trials have demonstrated that psychiatric medications for mood disorders also produce poor long-term outcomes. Perhaps the most striking example is the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study, the largest antidepressant effectiveness study ever conducted. This investigation revealed that the vast majority of depressed patients do not experience long-term remission with newer-generation antidepressants, even when given the opportunity to switch from one medication to another up to three times in the event of non-response (Rush et al., 2006). Under “best-practice” conditions designed to maximize the likelihood of achieving and maintaining remission, only 3% of patients who initially benefited from antidepressant medication maintained their improvement and remained in the study at 12-month follow-up (Pigott, 2011). In the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder study (STEP-BD; Schneck et al., 2008), only 23% of patients with bipolar disorder who received treatment in accordance with best-practice psychiatric guidelines (APA, 2002) remained well and continuously enrolled in the study during the one-year follow-up period. The remainder either dropped out (32%) or suffered a recurrence of a mood episode (45%).