HUNGRY MOTHER STATE PARK, VA

 

From: Andrew Phelps <dis_course@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: [cnmhc] Re: Medical Model vs Non Medical Model

To: cnmhc@yahoogroups.com

Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 10:49 AM

 

Dear Mr. Zzz:

Maybe it is time for a new strategy for the Non Medical Model. It is still confusing to consumers,

The word "consumer" itself is part of the medical model. See the work of Phil Cushman on this word usage.

the current criticize the Medical Model strategy of educating the masses has failed.

"Medical Model" has two different usages, one is the FASHION of Big Pharma of overdrugging together with telling stories based on the "broken brain" approach. A decade or so ago I had major discussions online with the shrink at the Iowa V.A. who provided the "schizophrenics" for Nancy Andreasen's "broken brain" study. He was embarrassed and felt used. Now she seems to be having second thoughts, also. So the HABITS of professional "mind science" are the 1st version.

The second version goes back to the difference (by analogy) between "alchemy" and "chemistry." The present way we do "mind science" is pre-scientific. That's what I call the 'medical model'. [Pat Risser uses words differently, but his underlying notion I believe is similar to mine.] For me the problematic is to overthrow the 'medical model' and replace it with a true "science of mind." So the problem of SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM CHANGE is the 1st version.

Your comments are in the flavor of the 1st version. You say "new habits" will work better. NOT.

When I went to NARPA in Baltimore in search of the definitive tome on the Non Medical Model I asked some questions during NARPA 101. I said the Network of Care would like to augment the site with any additional non medical model information that I can gather up. Also I explained that Trilogy doesn't own the site ..

I rest my case.

 

Andrew Phelps