By: Jim Ward
In April 1977, George L. Engel, then a
professor of Psychiatry and Medicine at the University of Rochester, New
York, published an article in Science entitled “The Need for a New
Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine.” In that article, Professor
Engel argued for a more holistic approach to medicine in the western
world. Engel believed that medicine had become more and more narrowly
focused in its approach: that practitioners were almost entirely focused
on a biomedical approach to human health concerns to the virtual
exclusion of psychosociological concerns. Patients were increasingly
being seen as biological machines, separate from their psychological and
social experiences and environments. This tendency, Engel claimed, was
even more apparent within the relatively new “medical science” of
psychiatry. This latter discipline, he argued, had swallowed the
biomedical model hook, line and sinker. This was seen to be problematic
by Engel because the model was far too deterministic for mainstream
medicine and, therefore, ludicrously so in psychiatry which many felt
was more appropriately seen as a branch of behavioural science rather
than medicine.
I came across this 37 year old article by pure
serendipity, whilst searching the internet one day recently for
information regarding approaches to mental illness. This was of interest
to me because, up until recently, I taught a course called “A History
of Madness” at Toronto’s Ryerson University. What really stunned me was
how such a truly seminal article, published so long ago has been almost
totally ignored.
In the past 37 years both medicine and
psychiatry have become increasingly narrow and biomedical in their
approach. In the modern world, psychiatrists and physicians know little
about their patients’ lives: what they do for a living, the
neighbourhoods they live in, their family situations, their financial
situations, their hopes and dreams. Each patient is seen as a separate
piece of machinery to be tinkered with. There is currently little
difference between an automobile going in for its quarterly service and
the annual check up of a human being.
This may not be such a
problem except for the fact that the solution to physical and mental
health problems is seen increasingly as the prescribing of one drug or
another. This relates closely to the narrow biomedical approach. The
most worrying aspect of this is that this tendency is difficult to halt
or slow down because of the special interests that would lose out
substantially were a more holistic approach to physical and mental
health be taken.
A New York Times article recently featured a
psychiatrist bemoaning the replacement of talk therapy with drug therapy
over the past 30 years. He admitted that he made much more money by
prescribing drugs rather than talking to patients because it meant he
could see three times as many patients in the same time. Many critics
in recent years have pointed out the huge profits
being made in the pharmaceutical industry. One of the areas in which
labour costs have increased enormously in recent years has been in
medicine, both physical and psychiatric. New high tech gadgets such as
cat scanners and brain imaging machines are enormously costly. Such
gadgets increase the emphasis on a biomedical approach to physical and
mental health issues.
Granted, it is virtually impossible
to measure the effectiveness of dollars spent in health care. There
are so many variables that can affect the health of an individual and a
population, the health care itself is just one of many. Here in
Ontario, the Ministry of Health attempted to avoid this complexity by
simply measuring wait times to get health care. The reason such
variables are singled out for measurement is that they are easily
measurable. Whether or not decreased wait times has a positive impact
on health is impossible to measure. One study that brings this point
home vividly is The Spirit Level. This comparative study of health
outcomes and costs in OECD countries notes that the United States has
the highest health costs and the poorest levels of health, measured by
morbidity and mortality rates.
Now, 37 years after it was
written, it is time to revisit George Engel’s 1977 article and to ask
some serious questions about whither health care, both physical and
mental.
Comments
Post a Comment