Development Of Mental Health Care In Modern Society Essay Example

significance and limitations. While the medical model provides a good explanation for "from", it also offers insight into "how".

The medical model provides insight into the mechanics of a disease, but it falls short in explaining its purpose or meaning. In essence, biology cannot answer the "why" questions behind a disorder, such as its main cause. It is essential to take both sets of questions into account for a complete understanding of the phenomenon.

Combining both approaches is crucial, as highlighted by Thomas Szaaz's The Myth Of Mental Illness published in 1961. This book offers a valuable examination of the significant issues with the medical model, which views the mind as an object. Szaaz presents a logical and conceptual assessment of this approach.

Szaaz argues that the medical model's goal is to integrate the mind and body in order to define, explain, justify, and treat mental illnesses. However, he critiques the idea that the mind can be considered an object due to differences in epistemology, language, and ontology from subjectivity and intellect. While the body can be perceived as a physical object examined through chemistry and physics principles, the mind cannot since it differs from matter or brain. The study of the mind involves communication, introspection, and comprehension rather than scientific methods applied to the body. Literal language portrays bodily functions while metaphors are used for mental processes.

Debates surround the purpose, societal implications, and consequences of the medical model, particularly in psychiatry. This model employs organized practices to exert social control and identifies individuals displaying undesirable behavior as mentally ill based on mood and actions. As such, these individuals may be subjected to treatment and management under the

mental health system without their consent. The medical model prioritizes symptom treatment rather than addressing the underlying cause. One example is ECT or electroconvulsive therapy.

In the 1930s, when the aECT was introduced, individuals with mental illness were deemed incapable of making decisions concerning their treatment and care. Patients were admitted to the hospital against their will with certificates from attending physicians. Decisions regarding treatment and prognosis were solely made by medical personnel without patient knowledge or consent. Electroconvulsive therapy entails the introduction of electricity to induce artificial seizures for therapeutic outcomes.

ECT has both short and long term effects on patients, with some studies showing memory loss as a side effect. This has raised concerns about patient rights and the potential for misuse, leading to stigma around ECT in medical discourse. To counter these concerns, treatment quality, economic factors, conflicting ideologies and political motivations are often cited as justifications for the therapy.

Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of ECT for certain types of depression. However, its use in treating other psychiatric conditions without proper consideration of its efficacy has been called into question. Additionally, involuntary confinement and forced restraint can be viewed as a means of societal control, and denying this would be disingenuous.

Psychiatrists, the public, and the mass media often neglect the impact of their actions on the independence and freedom of those who suffer from mental health challenges. They may force individuals to take drugs, confine them, and restrain them without any legal accusations or convictions. The justification for this lies in forced treatment and commitment laws, which aim to prevent harm to others and suicide. Despite this, the medical model in

psychiatry serves as both an ideology and a process that hides societal power and control as medical treatment. However, according to David Alder, psychiatry highly values the medical model and its clinical significance in relation to other models and psychiatric tasks.

The tasks of medical, rehabilitative, educative, and sociologic development are considered best accomplished using the medical model, including in the field of psychiatry. However, critics have long identified potential practical drawbacks in this model. Judi Chamberlin, who faced numerous challenges throughout her life, has pointed out a major flaw in the medical model.

Over the last 25 years, she has gained extensive knowledge about present-day psychiatry and has become an assertive advocate for change. Her advocacy extends to challenging the validity of the medical model and the psychiatric response to mental illness. Chamberlin shares her personal experience of experiencing a debilitating depression after suffering a miscarriage at age 21. The strict adherence of some psychiatrists to the medical model resulted in her being treated with medication and hospitalization, without addressing the root cause or exploring alternative treatments. This experience transformed her into a proactive and vocal advocate for change.

She experienced intense depression and suicidal thoughts following the end of a love relationship. Despite the irrelevance of her thoughts and emotions to her diagnosis, she was discouraged from expressing them under the medical model, which views such expressions as symptoms and seeks to suppress them through medication, physical restraints, or isolation. These modalities only worsened her condition and dehumanized her. She contends that the physical model's purpose is not to help people but rather to isolate and label those whose behaviors do not conform to social

norms.

Instead of understanding and guiding individuals who are suffering, society relies on drug therapy and electric shock to make them socially acceptable and docile. While these methods numb the pain, they do not address the root causes or promote personal responsibility. The overuse of these medical interventions in psychiatry is a negative aspect of the medical model.

Currently, the medical model used in psychiatric treatment may actually worsen patients' chronic illnesses instead of curing them. Treatment methods and institutions that solely rely on this model are not conducive to healing. In mental health care settings, patients' behaviors are controlled and modified using drugs and various treatments in order to conform to social norms. However, the question remains as to whether the feelings, expressions, and freedom of the patients are being adequately considered as mental hospitals are not designed to set them free.