Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Nursing Ethics
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Olsen, D. P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Olsen, D. P
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Mental Health
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Policy Implications of the Biological Model of Mental Disorder

Douglas P Olsen

Yale University School of Nursing, 100 Church Street South, PO Box 9740, New Haven, CT 06536-0740, USA

The current dominant paradigm of mental disorder is that psychopathology is a deviation from normal physiological functioning of the brain. This paradigm is closely allied to the identity theory of mind in philosophy, which holds that mental phenomena are identical with the physical state of the brain. The assumptions of the biological model have policy implications, regardless of the utility or ‘truth’ of the paradigm, which should be made explicit for the assessment of ethics in mental health policy formulation. The nature of mental phenomena has been debated throughout history, without consensus. Several critiques of the biological model are offered to encourage enquiring scepticism. The policy implications discussed are political conservatism, broadened rationales for forced treatment, utility in managed care, and the use of medical necessity criteria to allocate treatment.

Key Words: mental health • mind-body • policy

Nursing Ethics, Vol. 7, No. 5, 412-424 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/096973300000700506
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Nurs EthicsHome page
D. P Olsen and S. Cohen
Editorial Comment
Nursing Ethics, July 1, 2004; 11(4): 332 - 333.
[PDF]