The biomedical and the relational model of the body, the meaning of illness and quality of care: A comparative analysis

Abstract

In this article, I argue that every medical tradition is anchored in a certain anthropological understanding of the body, how that body can be afflicted by disease, and how best it can be treated. Also, each model of the body has implications for the nature of the patient-physician relationship and for quality of care. I compare two leading models of the body: the biomedical model, the predominant model in modern medicine; and the relational model, the leading model in indigenous sub-Saharan African medicine; and their implications on the conceptualisation of disease, the nature of the patient-physician relationship and quality of care. I show that because the biomedical model largely limits its clinical attention to the material body, it does not extend its gaze into the spiritual, social and ecological realms like the relational model, and in spite of the reforms it has undergone since the second half of the 20th century, this reductionist outlook has not faded. Also, because of the premium it places on rationality in the clinical encounter, the biomedical model emphasises individualistic values such as autonomy and emotional detachment of the physician from the patient. The relational model, on the other hand, though still uncharted, promotes inclusive values such as empathy, spirituality and harmony in health care. I argue that human nature is more complex than the biomedical and bio-psychosocial models construe; there are marginal models which may contribute to enhancing the biomedical model. Hence, there is a need to consider less-dominant medical approaches to the body.