This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The article does not explain why the biomedical model has been adopted, nor its benefits. Instead, it focusses on its putative drawbacks. No sources are given explaining what the biomedical model is all about. The only source given is a critical one. Moreover, the term itself has an ideological stain to it because it is maily used as a counterexample to holistic medicine. In mainstream medicine, the term is used in a different sence, as for example The pig as a biomedical model to study human protein calorie malnutrition Andreas (T) 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC). Note also that before Engel's article, noone went around saying that they were using the so-called Biomedical Model, and in fact all proper health professionals have always worked within a psychosocial framework (at least if they want to be effective)! Perhaps the model is really a "straw man" and practically exists not as a paradigm that people actually use but as something those who do not agree reject and criticise. Perhaps people only really use it when they are practicising suboptimally or without good training or time to work properly, as cited in Engel's articles. This doctor has certainly not seen other proper doctors use this "model", even those who have been in practice long before the model was challenged! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It is true that the article does not explain the use of the model in modern medicine. It should be noted, however, that there is no 'neutral' definition of health, the biomedical model of health is itself not neutral. The use of the model in public health (aside from the use within medicine testing) is inherently ideological (not a 'stain'). The definition should have two parts 1) the use of the term within medical practice, and 2) the use of the term in public health. Bjtow (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I would add (3) use in relation to mental health and psychiatry and the slightly related (4) use in relation to social theories of disability. Each of these is quite different, and I off the folowing without any attempt to reference them.
in medical practice and education - completely outmoded except in comparisons to the biopsychosocial model of illness.
a model of a known disease that may serve as a analogy for another lesser known illness under investigation.
a view which characterises mental illness as a discrete entity beyond any evidence for such and therefore beyond the influence or control of the sufferer.
a model which focuses on impairments as belonging to an individual rather that society. Egmason (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)