This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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 124.180.253.76 (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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.

1. in medical practice and education - completely outmoded except in comparisons to the biopsychosocial model of illness.
2. a model of a known disease that may serve as a analogy for another lesser known illness under investigation.
3. 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.
4. a model which focuses on impairments as belonging to an individual rather that society. Egmason (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It would be helpful to have a brief history and informational background on where this model came from, when it was developed in history, and the context behind that development. This might help in creating a more neutral view of this model and sources that are also neutral in their explanation.

- Haleyricks (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Such a complex subject deserves much more effort than this article, which appears written from an anti-biomedical model point of view. The four references are quite old (1998-2012) and include dubious sources (i.e. introductory textbooks and alternative medicine journals). There may be a place for criticism of the biomedical model in this article, but the primary purpose should be to inform the reader of its history and use in medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.14.135.38 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey - as with everywhere on Wikipedia, you're invited to be bold and make the edits you feel are necessary. Just nothing that this article is only a stub anyways, and § Features of the biomedical model is purely reciting the features of the model as per the source. A reference from the early 2010s are probably not considered "quite old", but I agree that more recent sources should be used. Tim (Talk) 04:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This whole page seems to be written as what essentially amounts to a strawman. Many of the features of the biomedical model presented here are obviously untrue. For example the biomedical model doesn't see the mind and the body as separate. Any doctor will tell you about the effects of stress on disease and the body, and mental illnesses are included under the biomedical model, many of which are understood as something that affects the mind and body in conjunction 2A02:85F:E655:8651:D6E:D53D:3933:4313 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply