Please Support Mad In America
Please Support Mad In America
One Time Monthly Yearly
Please make a selection.
{{amounts[0] | currency }} / {{formData.donationPeriod}}
{{amounts[1] | currency }} / {{formData.donationPeriod}}
{{amounts[2] | currency }} / {{formData.donationPeriod}}
Please enter an amount.

Use one of the links below to enter a one-time donation at an amount of your choosing (one-time donations will not automatically remove the "Support Us" popup, but if you write to us we can remove it for you manually).

Credit Card
PayPal does not host advertisements or sell any data about our readers. As such, our ongoing operations are funded entirely by the support of our readers. With your support, you won't see this again for a year.

No Thanks

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

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, among other venues.

Article →

Deacon, B; The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research. Clinical Psychology Review. Online April 8, 2013

Recent News

Recent Blogs

Around The Web

Related Posts

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

Leave a Reply