How to Be a Holist Who Rejects the Biopsychosocial Model

IF 0.7 Q4 ETHICS European Journal of Analytic Philosophy Pub Date : 2021-10-28 DOI:10.31820/ejap.17.2.5
D. O’Leary
{"title":"How to Be a Holist Who Rejects the Biopsychosocial Model","authors":"D. O’Leary","doi":"10.31820/ejap.17.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After nearly fifty years of mea culpas and explanatory additions, the biopsychosocial model is no closer to a life of its own. Bolton and Gillett give it a strong philosophical boost in The Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disease, but they overlook the model’s deeply inconsistent position on dualism. Moreover, because metaphysical confusion has clinical ramifications in medicine, their solution sidesteps the model’s most pressing clinical faults. But the news is not all bad. We can maintain the merits of holism as we let go of the inchoate bag of platitudes that is the biopsychosocial model. We can accept holism as the metaphysical open door that it is, just a willingness to recognize the reality of human experience, and the sense in which that reality forces medicine to address biological, psychological, and social aspects of health. This allows us to finally characterize Engel’s driving idea in accurate philosophical terms, as acceptance of (phenomenal) consciousness in the context of medical science. This will not entirely pin down medicine’s stance on dualism, but it will position it clearly enough to readily improve patient care.","PeriodicalId":32823,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Analytic Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31820/ejap.17.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

After nearly fifty years of mea culpas and explanatory additions, the biopsychosocial model is no closer to a life of its own. Bolton and Gillett give it a strong philosophical boost in The Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disease, but they overlook the model’s deeply inconsistent position on dualism. Moreover, because metaphysical confusion has clinical ramifications in medicine, their solution sidesteps the model’s most pressing clinical faults. But the news is not all bad. We can maintain the merits of holism as we let go of the inchoate bag of platitudes that is the biopsychosocial model. We can accept holism as the metaphysical open door that it is, just a willingness to recognize the reality of human experience, and the sense in which that reality forces medicine to address biological, psychological, and social aspects of health. This allows us to finally characterize Engel’s driving idea in accurate philosophical terms, as acceptance of (phenomenal) consciousness in the context of medical science. This will not entirely pin down medicine’s stance on dualism, but it will position it clearly enough to readily improve patient care.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何成为拒绝生物心理社会模式的整体主义者
经过近五十年的道歉和解释性补充,生物心理社会模式并没有更接近自己的生活。博尔顿和吉列在《健康与疾病的生物心理社会模型》中对其进行了强有力的哲学推动,但他们忽视了该模型在二元论上极不一致的立场。此外,由于形而上学的困惑在医学中具有临床影响,他们的解决方案避开了该模型最紧迫的临床缺陷。但这个消息并不全是坏消息。我们可以保持整体主义的优点,因为我们放弃了早期的陈词滥调,即生物心理社会模式。我们可以接受整体主义是一扇形而上学的敞开之门,它只是一种承认人类经验现实的意愿,以及这种现实迫使医学解决健康的生物、心理和社会方面的问题。这使我们最终能够用准确的哲学术语将恩格尔的驱动思想定性为在医学背景下对(现象)意识的接受。这并不能完全确定医学对二元论的立场,但它将足够明确地定位它,以随时改善患者护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Analytic Philosophy
European Journal of Analytic Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Something Negative about Totality Facts Moralnost bez kategoričnosti Zašto biti su-roditelj? Slobodna volja kao epistemički nevino lažno vjerovanje Are there “Moral” Judgments?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1