Time for a Change: Topical Amendments to the Medical Model of Disease

Learning from disability studies to introduce the role of the individual to naturalistic accounts of disease

Disability studies have been successfully focusing on individuals' lived experiences, the personalization of goals, and the constitution of the individual in defining disease and restructuring public understandings of disability. Although they had a strong influence in the policy making and medical modeling of disease, their framework has not been translated to traditional naturalistic accounts of disease. I will argue that, using new developments in evolutionary biology (Extended Evolutionary Synthesis [EES] about questions of proper function) and behavioral ecology (Niche conformance and construction about the questions of reference classes in biostatistics accounts), the main elements of the framework of disability studies can be used to represent life histories at the conceptual level of the two main "non-normative" accounts of disease. I chose these accounts since they are related to medicine in a more descriptive way. The success of the practical aspects of disability studies this way will be communicated without causing injustice to the individual since they will represent the individuality of the patient in two main naturalistic accounts of disease: the biostatistical account and the evolutionary functional account. Although most accounts criticizing the concept of disease as value-laden do not supply a positive element, disability studies can supply a good point for descriptive extension of the concept through inclusion of epistemic agency.

Patients Describe their Lived Experiences of Battling to Live with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) has never comprehensively been examined from a lived experience perspective. Patients generally have a poorer quality of life than people with other chronic pain conditions. This study aimed to understand the essence of living with CRPS. Data were collected from 17 patients via in-depth interviews. Hermeneutic discussions with four health professionals generated deeper insights. Internet blogs and a book containing patient stories were included for theme verification and triangulation. CRPS is seen as a war-like experience and five themes were identified within the battle: "dealing with the unknown enemy", "building an armoury against a moving target", "battles within the war", "developing battle plans with allies" and "warrior or prisoner of war". Patients live with a chronic pain condition and experience problems unique to CRPS such as fear of pain extending to other parts of their body. Use of the model generated by this research may assist patient/clinician interactions and guide therapeutic discussions. Support for people living with CRPS does not always exist, and some healthcare professionals require additional education about the condition. Better health outcomes are experienced by patients when their personal situation and experiences are heard and understood by health care professionals. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the lived experience of CRPS. This information and the model generated can help clinicians to better understand their patients and deliver appropriate patient-centered care.

The Hidden Curriculum and Integrating Cure- and Care-Based Approaches to Medicine

Although current literature about the “cure versus care” issue tends to promote a patient-centered approach, the disease-centered approach remains the prevailing model in practice. The perceived dichotomy between the two approaches has created a barrier that could make it difficult for medical students and physicians to integrate psychosocial aspects of patient care into the prevailing disease-based model. This article examines the influence of the formal and hidden curricula on the perception of these two approaches and finds that the hidden curriculum perpetuates the notion that “cure” and “care” based approaches are dichotomous despite significant changes in formal curricula that promote a more integrated approach. The authors argue that it is detrimental for clinicians to view the two approaches as oppositional rather than complementary and attempt to give recommendations on how the influence of the hidden curriculum can be reduced to get a both-cure-and-care-approach, rather than an either-cure-or-care-approach.