This essay will provide a comparative analysis of two different theoretical approaches to disability. These approaches include the medical model of disability and the social model of disability. Disability is a socially constructed concept that can be viewed from either a medical or social perspective. These models will be further discussed by comparing the deficits and merits of each model and how these models are interpreted. To understand these models further, various theories will be applied to uncover cultural understandings of ‘disability’.
Three models of disability are examined below: the medical model, the social model, and the Human Rights Model of Disability (HRMD). The influence of the ‘capability approach’ on the HRMD will also be examined. Understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of these disability models and the capability approach is important because each model has implications in policy design, implementation and practice that affect disabled people (Trani and Bakhshi, Wasserman, Asch, Blustein, and Putnam). For example, the various conceptual frameworks underlying the identification of what disability entails, and how it is measured, has implications for the estimation of prevalence of disability, whether and to what extent it needs addressing through policy, and the validity of various forms of disability research. It is argued that the HRMD, which is a synthesis of other models presented, provides the most complete, coheren... ... middle of paper ... ...del as ‘a sacred cow’.
The UPIAS claimed that it was society that disabled people, thus bringing about the ‘social model’. The medical and social models of disability have then been furthered upon by different theorists, scholars and disability rights advocates. This essay will explore the definition and systems behind these two models of disability, while using articles on the media portrayal of disability to help bring a greater understanding of these models and how they work. The medical model of disability is the theory that the problem of the disability lies with the individual, and that managing the disability with drugs or therapy, finding a cure or managing the disability is the best course of treatment. Olkin (2001, p. 26) states that, ‘The medical model gained momentum in the mid-1800s with the advent of more enlightened and humanistic medicine… Disability is seen as a medical problem that resides in the individual.’ The overall aim of the medical model is to ‘normalise’ the individual as much as medically possible.
There are two different approaches into understanding and analysing disability. The first approach is the medical model of disability, this approach looks at disability as a pathological “state that is confined to the individual”. This model treats individuals with disability as a primarily form of social deviance. The other approach is the social model of disability, this approach treats disability has a social issue as well as this this approach looks at disability as a “adopts a critical analysis of the social oppression of disabled individuals, and the social model of disability, which is characterised by a distinction between “disability” and “impairment”. Acording to “sociology of disability” (Kutner 2007; Thomas 2007; Williams 1998).
INTRODUCTION This report will look at how communities label people with disabilities. It will also focus on how such practices will affect the daily lives of people with mental and learning disabilities. The author will explain in detail the definitions of labeling and disability, and then examine the current legislations set by the government to improve life styles of the disabled people. Comparison will be done on the impact of social and medical models on disability, and on how these models try to explore techniques of inclusion and exclusion . Labeling theories will be discussed and this piece will sum up the debate with a brief summative conclusion.
New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 24(20, 11-18. Russel, J. D & Roxanas, M. G. (1990). Psychiatry and the frontal lobes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 24 113-132.
The social model is where the medical condition of the disabled is seen as being just part of the problem. The opinion of the social model is that society is prepared only to fulfil the needs of non disabled people. My investigation will use an access audit, and two articles to explore attitude towards disabled people and to identify any barriers they face in terms of access and attitude. I will consider what attitudes towards disabled people are suggested and communicated by these are sources. I shall highlight whether or not the sources offer a positive or negative view of disability.
(2006). Clinicians' judgments of clinical utility: A comparison of the DSM-IV and five-factor models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(2), 298-308. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.298 Skodol, A., & Bender, D. (2009). The future of personality disorders in DSM-V? American Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 388–391.
The DSM only focuses on the present symptoms associated with clinically significant impairment or distress. This tool does not assess the strength’s, skills and abilities of the individual and environment to which they live. The DSM fails to consider that individuals are more successful when they are helped to recognize their strengths and the resources available to them. Transforming the DSM is no easy task as the medical model requires a diagnosis in order to gain reimbursement for services. There needs to be an integration between the medical field and social services.
Research on the social construction of mental illness can further help us gain understanding on the cultural meaning of illnesses, illness experience for the individual, and socially constructed “medical knowledge.” The research focuses on how social groups can alter norms and perceptions, contributing to a perceived social reality and knowledge. There lies a difference between disease and illness; the former being medically defined by professionals while the latter is socially characterized and defined. Medical definitions are rigidly and universally defined, whereas “illnesses” are dynamic in their nature and can be shaped by eras or culture at the time, thus giving insight into how perceptions evolve (APA, 9). By looking at the impacts of the connotations of mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, sociologists can trace how society responds to those diagnosed. Even though these types of illnesses can have the same impact on the individual in terms of strife compared to other illnesses, the way they are perceived leads to a skewed view of their value.