Alternatives to the Medical Model

What is the rationale behind identifying alternative avenues to the medical model?

Benefits of Shifting Away From the Medical Model:

Pathology < Reasonable reaction to emotional distress

Subjectivity/implicit bias
Cultural sensitivity
Inherently pathologizing
Countertransference
Less emphasis on the patient’s strengths
“Impression of incurability” of diagnoses
Emotions = more complex than physical ailments
Some people may not want to be asymptomatic
Reliance on medication

Dissatisfaction with the DSM Among Mental Health Professionals:

A 2020 study highlighted clinicians' attitudes regarding the utility of the DSM and the implementation of alternatives.
Follow-up to two similar investigations examining attitudes toward the DSM conducted in the 1980’s.

Findings:

Initial study: Indicated that only 17% of respondents were satisfied with the DSM-II at the time.
After publication of DSM-III, 85% of respondents disagreed with the statement that “mental disorders are a subset of medical disorders.”
79% conveying that “too little has been done to provide empirical alternatives to the DSM (Raskin et al., 2022).
The most recent study found a similarity in attitudes despite the revisions that have been made since the 1980's.
Participants of all theoretical backgrounds (CBT, psychodynamic, humanistic, integrative/eclectic) agreed with the statement, “Too little has been done to promote a scientific alternative to the DSM.”

My takeaway is, ultimately, the current consensus is that this type of experience is pathological. Abnormal. Maladaptive. Or ill. It implies that there is a right way to exist or experience emotional distress, and this is the “wrong” way. However, I would argue that these alterations in experience are a valid survival mechanism that these individuals have acquired in order to adapt in an unsafe or unpredictable environment.

Sources:

Raskin, J. D., Maynard, D., & Gayle, M. C. (2022). Psychologist attitudes toward DSM-5 and its alternatives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 53(6), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000480