Stress and the Biomedical Theory - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: STRESS &THE BIOMEDICAL THEORY Stress and the Biomedical Theory School Stress and theBiomedical Theory Scientific discovery and research has always been an important part of modern culture. Science equates with knowledge, and, therefore, solutions to our questions. In the 19th and 20th century much scientific advancement occurred, physics was born. Newton showed us that the complex world was easily explained as it followed a few simple, predictable rules. At this time also popular was Descartes' 17th Century Theory of Cartesian Dualism which asserted that the body and mind were two separate entities: "bodies exist in space, subject to mechanical laws, while minds exist elsewhere, in an isolated, independent realm. It splits the 'outer' world (objective and amenable to rigorous research) and the "inner" world (subjective, marginally accessible, and scientifically unreliable)" (Cohen, 1998). In keeping with the thinking of that time, if something as complex as the nature of matter could be explained with such rigorous predictability and using Descartes' theory as its fundamental building block, the Biomedical Theory was born. This theory, in simple terms, implies that the body is a physical form totally separate from any psychological aspects. As such just as matter can be explained through research and testing so can the mechanics of the human body. Further disease and illness are outside forces that act upon the body, attacking from outside. The symptoms they produce can be analyzed and diagnosed and then treated. With further scientific advances such as the work of Pasteur and others, the grounding in scientific research was cemented. "The biomedical model provides a clearly articulated scientific framework for understanding the disease process and mechanisms of remedy, and it excels at treating infectious diseases and acute or traumatic injuries" (Cohen, 1998). A patient visits his doctor because of the appearance of a symptom over which he has no control. Through examination and testing, the doctor, the expert, makes a diagnosis. Based on the diagnosis, the doctor prescribes a treatment, be it drug therapy, surgery, bed rest, or a host of other solutions. The treatment is aimed at producing two results: relieving the symptoms and killing or eliminating the cause of the illness or disease. Everything is neatly ordered and predictable. The Biomedical theory has served the medical community well for years, but problems are emerging that can not be explained solely by this theory. For instance, although the Biomedical Theory works well in an emergency situation where a patient presents himself at the hospital with chest pains or in instances where there is one specific cure for a specific disease; it does not fair as well when dealing with long term, chronic illness. Such illnesses have confounded modern medical practices; do not fit in with the direct correlation of cause and effect or according to Cohen "require treatments accompanied by toxic side affects" (1998). The biomedical theory is based on cause and effect. As such, is comes as no surprise that it bases its findings of empirical data which is validated through research. When analysing stress using the Biomedical model the practitioner views stress in a similar fashion as a doctor views illness. It is an outside force that attacks the inner workings of the body. The stress itself is the symptom, and the cause of the stress is a separate entity which is unrelated to the manifestation presented in the body. However, it has been widely accepted for decades that there appears to be a connection between illness, stress and health During the early stages on modern medicine the Biomedical Theory was able to flourish due to the very nature of illness present during the era. Most of the symptoms and illnesses presented were specific disease which the Biomedical Theory could easily trace to root causes based on scientific research. Polio, measles and small pox, to name a few, were characteristic of the complaints typically presented to physicians. Research yielded causes, and cures or vaccines to prevent the diseases were discovered. However, as discussed earlier, the type of illness frequently being presented today to physicians are not easily diagnosed. These long term, chronic illnesses have caused practitioners favoring the Biomedical Model to expand their research into areas not traditionally studied by the medical community. Psychologist Cannon in 1932 developed one of the first models relating to stress - fight vs. flight. Presumed to date back to when physical survival was an every day concern. The theory assumed a physiological reaction caused by the stressor cause the individual to do one of two things - fight his adversary or flee from danger. This theory did not account for any difference in the degree of stress exhibited by each individual or how they may react to it. Also it does not consider stress outside the realm of the physiology of stress (Ogden, 2004, Ch 10 - 11). Research conducted in 1956 by Canadian physician Seyle into stress and stressors began to pave the way for later empirical research into the effect of stress on health and illness. General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS), as it became known, categorized stress in three distinct phases. According to Ogden, the phases are: the alarm state, which occur directly after a particular event inducting stress and results in an increase in ones activity; resistance, where the individual attempts to deal with the stress; and the exhaustion phase, which occurs when resistance is no longer possible due to the repeated overexposure to the stressors and the inability to effectively resist them (Ogden, 2004, Ch 10 - 11). The main concern with this theory is although it is observable behavior, it does not account for how different individuals may respond in varying degrees. There is no concern for the individuality of each person and it further infers that all stress comes from outside the person negating internal stressors One of the benefits of the Biomedical Theory is that proponents have a long history of clinical research under controlled setting to prove or disprove theories based on empirical data. There is no guessing or surmising. The findings of such research are conclusive. In studying stress researchers using the Biomedical Model develop not theory or supposition but fact. As an example during the 1960's "cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman systematically explored the personality-CHD [Coronary Heart Disease] relationship. They identified the now classic Type-A person who shows hostility, excessive competitiveness, impatience, and pressured speech. An opposite behavior pattern, shown by the Type-B personality, characterizes a more easygoing style of coping" (DeVito 1994, pp. 27). Based on findings as early as the 1930's by Dr. Adolph Meyers who saw a link between periods of high levels of stress in his patients and illness, researchers have, through scientific research determined stressors linked to life events. The major flaw with this theory although it was progressing somewhat from earlier models is that is doesn't not account for differences in different people. What one person may view as stressful may not be interpreted as such by another. This theory tired to group every person together and did not account for or consider the unique differences of each individual and their perceptions of what is and is not stressful. Research has been conducted into the relationship of illness on the immune system which has yielded valuable information demonstrating that the immune system "is not as autonomous and independent of other body systems as previously believed. It interacts with both the nervous and endocrine systems; the latter secretes hormones, like adrenaline, directly into the blood stream" (DeVito 1994, pp. 27). This finding has led to the development and branching out of science into new fields. Using scientific research based on the Biomedical Model has yielded advances in medicine, particularly stress, which could not have been determined using other models or theories. In that respect the Biomedical Theory with its use of data driven results can teach other disciplines of the importance of facts and direct causes. However, without considering the whole person and the possible affects of psychological, social, or humanistic side of the human, the Biomedical Theory limits itself in its possibilities. For instances, the Biomedical Theory in its pure form limits itself to controlled clinical trials which have their place; however, life, which encompasses, in part, health, illness and stress, is not controlled. It happens every day outside the controlled setting of a research laboratory. In its rigidity and clinging to the hierarchical view that 'we' are the experts, proponents of the Biomedical Model are limiting themselves to the possibilities of what discoveries await. Doctors Hubbard and Workman in their book, Handbook of Stress Medicine, state that controlled studies within the confines of a laboratory setting "provide better control of the stressorsThey do not, however, reflect the multiple and varied exposure to naturally occurring stressors of real life. Measurements of real life stress are not well controlled, but are needed to determine the impact of stress to people's overall health and well-being" (1998, pp. 12). Stress is an important area that needs further study. It affects everyone's health and well-being at some point in their life. The ability of the Biomedical Model practitioners to adapt somewhat to consider the whole person which includes body and spirit, more in keeping with the concepts of the Health Psychology Field is needed; not to break away from their data driven scientific approach but to broaden it and incorporate it into examining causes in addition to looking at symptoms. A view of that the Biomedical technician it superior to other fields of study is, too often, commonly held. Additionally found is isolationist view that what is mine is mine. Instead of trying to keep disciplines separate, a blending and sharing of knowledge and acknowledgement that other sciences have important contributions to make. Further Biomedical theorists need to understand that they too can learn from other branches. They both want the same outcome, better lives for their patients or clients. While reviewing the literature, a prime example of this imperialistic attitude was found. We therefore believe that epidemiologists, sociologists and psychologists should stick to their field of scientific inquiry This is not just a statement of purity. We firmly believe that shopping in neighbouring scientific fields will lead to statistical results without relevant meaning" (Zielhuis & Kiemeney 2001, p. 44). The Biomedical Theory has a long distinguished history and because of its scientific roots pheonominal advancements in health and medicine have occurred. Without the data driven empirical research spawned by science, the human condition would not be as advanced as it is today. However, the nature of health and wellness and the way they are perceived has changed. We are faced today with stresses and situations unheard of a few decades earlier. As such, the Biomedical Theory, although still important and valued with its scientific approach and basis in science, needs to rise to the occasion and meet the needs of tomorrow's patient. This will entail, not forgoing its past; rather it needs to expand its future and embrace the study of the relevance of the human psyche as a 'real' part of whole human and investigate how it affects and is affected by the physical form. References Cohen, M. H., (1998). "The biomedical paradigm." From Compementary and Alternative Medicine: Legal Boundaries and Regulatroy Persepectives. Baltimore: Maryland, John Hopkins University Press. Accessed 1 Jan. 2006, from http://indylaw.indiana.edu/instructors/orentlicher/healthlw/Chap1B3.htm#Biomedical DeVito, P. L., (Jul. 1994). "The immune system vs. stress." USA Today Magazine, 123:2590, pp. 27. Accessed 1 Jan. 2006, from Academic Search Premier Database. EBSCO host. Hubbard, J. R. and Workman, E. A. (1998). Handbook of Stress Medicine. Boca Raton: Florida, CRC Press LLC. Ogden, J. (2004). "Health psychology: a textbook." Open University Press, A Division of McGraw Hill Education. Zielhuis, G. A. and Kiemeney, L. A. (2001). "Social epidemiology no way." International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, pp. 43 - 44. Accessed 1 Jan. 2006, from Academic Search Premier Database. EBSCO host. Read More