Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Differences between biomedical models of health
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Public health is a concept that will always be subject to conflicting opinion. Over the year’s different ‘models’ of health have been formulated in order to categorise public health into dominant areas of cause and effect. The two models in which this essay will be focusing on are the Biomedical Model and the Lifestyle Theory Model. Although both models have equally arguable advantages and disadvantages, it is difficult to state either model as being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in defining the correct pathway to resolving the central health issues of today. The Biomedical Model constitutes the absence of disease, pain and defect of the body (Fanany, 2012). (Baum, 2012) describes the Biomedical Model in reference to the human body “like clockwork”. He believes that the body is like a machine. Every individual part that fits together must be able to function interpedently for the rest of the body to work – just like a clock. Following Baum’s reasoning, the Biomedical Model is centred upon the treatment of health problems. For example if a person has a disease or falls ill the Biomedical Model’s focus is towards the body’s physical processes, which includes biochemical, pathological and physiological (Fanany, 2012). This diagnostic approach involves firstly, locating the cause of the illness (the pathogen), and secondly, treating the illness accordingly using Westernised medical interventions (such as drugs or surgery). The Biomedical Model is the most dominant model throughout the current century because it focuses predominantly on treatment and cure. This brings about an immediate attraction towards the Biomedical Model of health because it is instantaneous. Results are immediate and can be physically felt and seen so a person’s impro... ... middle of paper ... ...ow them to, or give them the means, to be able to have good health. This is a major downfall for both models as they are completely ruling out a basic human need, environment, as having any influence upon a person’s state of health. As discussed, it is clear that when it comes to public health the lines are often quite blurred. The Biomedical Model and the Lifestyle Theory Model both have their advantages however a common theme throughout both models is that they are both too reductionist in their approach to health. They failed to consider other health models viewpoints, or incorporate external factors such as the social gradient into their reasoning behind the cause and effect of bad health. Therefore instead of trying to categorise health into definite ‘health models’, health needs to be accepted more for what it is - a forever changing and adapting concept.
The socio-medical model believes that, as a society, if living conditions are improved, health will also show improvements. This model states environmental and social factors are an imprint source of disease. For example, if a child is living in a house where there is no outdoor space for the child to become active, the child will be likely to become overweight. However, if the council makes
The biopsychosocial model of health was developed by George L. Engel (1977) whom determined the cause of diseases. Biopsychosocial has a deep interrelation with all three of the models or the factors which leads to the overall outcome of a person’s illness or disease. Each model in the biopsychosocial model of health has different insights in regards to patient’s body, health and diseases.
The 21st century health system has been marked by rapid developments in medical technology, availability of treatments, and advancements in the field of medicine. These changes have tremendously contributed to better prevention, management, and control of chronic illnesses like heart disease, asthma, diabetes and arthritis. However, the reality of chronic illness is intertwined with continued dwindle in quality of life, of dependency, of medication and limits. In this condition of diminishing health, the patient starkly experiences the dichotomy between the mind and the body. As P1 shares, “My mind is ok, but my body is simply weak. It has its own ways.”
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129–136.
Griffiths et al., (2005) put forward a conceptual model that examine the causes of ill health and disease in populations, using epidemiology and evidence to change what works to change in practice. This includes three strands: information on health improvement about healthy lifestyle or housing improvements ,health service delivery and quality; and primary care services and promotion of health for example immunisation and screening (RCN,
Biologically, it can mean our “basic biological makeup”. Aristotle holds the view that it is “something permanent and universal in all humans”, in which losing any of these “essential characteristics” will rob us of our humanity. Buchanan raises the point that UGM, since it is not morally selective, is unlikely to preserve the parts of “human nature” that are valued most by us. Additionally, “nature” can also be defined culturally, since culture has since become very important for “defining who we are” and “how we differ” from other animals. Biomedical enhancement can also generate new knowledge to aid us in self-improvement, which is touched on by Buchanan in Chapter 7. He believes that any “sane” approach to the risks of biomedical enhancements must be “knowledge-sensitive”, which reflects and encourages the “growth of knowledge”. Not only does this knowledge enable us to grasp and apply the concept of biomedical engineering in a “scientifically informed” way, it can also go a long way in future developments that can improve both our quality of life and perhaps a breakthrough in the knowledge
The advancement in health care and biomedical technology has made biomedical model that focuses just on curing the disease as the dominant approach. It excludes emotional, social, psychological and behavioral aspects of illness. However with increase in chronic disease and need for long term care, the healthcare delivery systems are changing, making it more patient centric. The health practices are gradually focusing on design of treatment plans based on patents narratives.
The biomedical model of health has been criticised because it fails to include the psychological and social causes relating to an individual’s medical illness or health, looking only at the biological causes (Giddens and Sutton, 2013). Therefore, sociologists being aware of the impacts of social structure and lifestyle on health have put in various efforts to place the study of ‘the social’ at the core of health and healthcare examination.
Two types of illnesses related to this are chronic illness (lasting/terminal) and acute illness (minor e.g. the flu). Criticism of the mechanistic model is that it is slightly simplistic and may not always apply because the body cannot always be repaired. The second model is the 'Naturalistic Model', which refers to the notion of equilibrium. In order for the body to remain healthy, there must be a balance. Chinese medicine relies greatly on this notion i.e.
This essay which will identify the five approaches with health promotion. It will focus on two approaches for the sake of this essay. These approaches will be defined and show how it could be used to tackle a life style behaviour using the Beattie’s model. The Beattie’s model is one of the several models health promoters use as a guide to direct the intervention mode and strategy which is suitable for any particular problem. This model will be used to identify the location of each of the two approaches, highlighting role of the health promoter in each approach, as well as discuss policies and ethical issues which are associated with each approach. Furthermore the essay will cover the values of each approach while it emphasis the need for health promoters to consider the effectiveness of a model to ensure suitability for any presented problem.
The one instant I can pinpoint as the genesis of my interest in biomedical science was the winter of sixth grade, when I picked up a book on creativity and the brain. I found it fascinating, but what really struck me was that here was a several hundred page book that mostly talked about how little we knew about its topic. It made me think. This was supposed to be a book about how much we’ve learned, and what it’s saying is that the progress we’ve made is only in finding out how little we know. This didn’t upset me; it made me curious. Because, of all the things that we should know about, surely our own minds and our own bodies are paramount among them, and yet we still have so much to learn. I’ve since learned that this phenomenon is not restricted to the biological – gravity is one of the most important things in our lives, yet we do not know its cause. But the biomedical questions continue to fascinate me, perhaps because the answers are so vital. Sure, cosmology is intriguing, but what about a cure for cancer, or even the common cold? What about a way of repairing or bypass...
The notion of health is contextual and an interactive, dynamic process between person and environment (Schim et al, 2007). Both wellness and illness are conceptualized by the ‘person’, existing on a continuum across the lifespan (Arnold & Boggs, 2001).
To reach a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, an individual or group must be able to identify and to realize aspirations, to satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment. Health is, therefore, seen as a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities. Therefore, health promotion is not just the responsibility of the health sector, but goes beyond healthy life-styles to wellbeing. Health promotion goes beyond health care. It puts health on the agenda of policy makers in all sectors and at all levels. It directs policy makers to be aware of the health consequences of their decisions and accept their responsibilities for
In this paper I will be discussing the two most prevalent models of health. These two models of health are not, of course, total opposites. Similar to terms such as gay and straight they are two definitive labels placed upon a broad spectrum that is hardly definitive. There exists in this case as well a large clouded middle between the two limiting labels. These are collections of thoughts about how to go about continuing life. These two paradigms in modern healthcare I hope will one-day come to know one another. For now let us say that in generally speaking there are two different approaches or models of medicine and they are allopathic and holistic. Allopathic is another term for our modern western medicine, which in the United States is the dominant one and the one most familiar to the masses. The other, the holistic model, also known as alternative, is commonly associated with older ideas that originated in the East.
Kevin White pp: 5-8k introduction to sociology of health and illness second edition books.goole.co.uk accessed 11-04-2014