Astral Codex Ten

Medical Model

6 min read

Medical Model

Article

Medical Model is a recurring concept in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between July 14, 2023 and July 25, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as “Instead, it’s contrasted with “the Medical Model”, a sort of Washington Generals of disability models”; “Usually focuses on ways the Social Model is useful, and the Medical Model is wrong”; “Rejecting the Social Model doesn’t mean accepting the straw-man Medical Model”. It most often appears alongside American Psychological Association, biopsychosocial model, NASA.

Metadata

  • Category: Concepts
  • Mention count: 2
  • Issue count: 2
  • First seen: July 14, 2023
  • Last seen: July 25, 2023

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Contra The Social Model Of Disability
July 14, 2023 · Original source
A consequence of the medical model of disability is that people with disabilities often report feeling socially excluded, undervalued, and treated as if they are completely incapacitated or objects of pity [3]. But for many, the main disadvantage of living with a disability is less about their own body and more about society’s response to them. This response often comes in the form of an unwelcoming reception, in terms of social attitudes and institutional norms, as well as built physical environments that promote exclusion.
. . . this isn’t how the Social Model gets taught in real classrooms. Instead, it’s contrasted with “the Medical Model”, a sort of Washington Generals of disability models which nobody will admit to believing. The Medical Model is “disability is only caused by disease , society never contributes in any way, and nobody should ever accommodate it at all . . . ” Then the people describing it add “. . . and also, it says disabled people should be stigmatized, and not treated as real humans, and denied basic rights”. Why does the first part imply the second? It doesn’t matter, because “the Medical Model” was invented as a bogeyman to force people to run screaming into the outstretched arms of the Social Model.
Real-world doctors have no relationship to the Medical Model, and are happy to suggest accommodations for disabilities. The one above is so pro-accommodations that he is personally accommodating his visual disability (by wearing glasses). If we ignore the tradition of teaching disability models this way, and contrast the Social Model with the Interactionist Model, it’s easy to see that the Social Model . . . kind of sucks? In fact, I’ve never heard anyone willing to defend the actual Social Model the way it’s taught in every course, written on every website, and defined by every government agency. Everyone says they mean the Interactionist Model. Yet somehow, the official descriptions still say that disability is only social and not related to disease, and that you may only treat it with accommodations and not with medical care.
Highlights From The Comments On Social Model Of Disability
July 25, 2023 · Original source
It's worth noting that the medical model isn't a total fiction either. Aside from the fact that the medical model is more about mentality and approach to disability rather than anything else, fundamentally the medical model is an extreme that tends to be based on the way surgeons are taught - focus on the body/operation/disorder and leave the rest to the nurses, GPs and psychs. The medical model and the social model are both extremes like being political left or politically right. No one really 100% meets the definition of "left" or "right", but people do tend to look for dichotomies and lean more in one direction than the other (even if reality is infinitely more complex). Now again, I think the intersectional model is better, and the mediating tools model, and the pluralist model, and a bunch of others, but not only are these models often seen as more complex, they're often politically weak standpoints because they don't create a strong us vs them mentality, they don't cast blame, they don't provide a banner to unite around, etc., etc., but these things are kinda the entire point of a no-compromise position. By not compromising you (theoretically) force the other party to change, readjust, come up with a new position and eventually you get somewhere agreeable - or at least you create an opening for a third party to step in and take over. That is what the Social Model is about. It's not (read as shouldn't) be the dominant standpoint, but it should be about forcing people to bring these questions to the table by starting from and maintaining a position of strength. Now that doesn't mean there aren't people who don't blindly follow the Social Model to the point of stupidity, but I've met people who adhere to the medical model as a standpoint too.
Also you seem to have totally missed the charity model of disability which the Social Model is generally intended to confront also. Although I do say generally because usually it's listed as medical model first, charity model second, and frankly I'd be dead if it wasn't for the charity model even if the way it's carried out is very insulting a lot of the time (add onto this the conditional charity model and... there's a lot of depth to these arguments).
Anyway. This is something I've studied a decent amount because of the impact the Social Model, Charity Model and Medical Model has had on the Australian model, and in particular studying the history of the IDF (the former ICIDH), and a few other things. But I'm not an expert. And I'm also speaking from the perspective of a disabled Australian and not Ireland (our history with the social model mostly goes back to the late 80s at best).