2008 Ohio Psychologist - Ohio Psychological Association

“It May Be Descartes Fault, But
Why Are We Still Doing It”
The Pitfalls of Biological versus
Psychological Explanations for
Mental Illness
By: Craig S. Travis, PhD, Mount Carmel Family
Medicine Residency, and Mary Miller Lewis,
PhD, Senior Life Consultants, Inc.
Abstract
This article explores the danger underlying the opinions of healthcare and
insurance industries that if a condition is physical (biological) it is valid
and real, but if it is psychological (emotional), then it must not be real.
Therefore, for psychological illnesses to receive the same validity, they must
be biologized. Although biologizing mental illness may have some positive
aspects (e.g., validating the existence of a disorder), overall it may actually
have a detrimental effect on the profession of psychology and marginalized
groups. The authors conclude with a call to the profession to examine their
own beliefs about biologizing mental health.
Glennon J. Karr
Attorney at Law
Legal Services for
Psychological Practices
(614) 848-3100
Outside the Columbus area,
The Toll Free No. is:
(888) 527-7529
(KARRLAW)
Fax: (614) 848-3160
E-Mail: karrlaw@rrohio.com
1328 Oakview Drive
Columbus, OH 43235
“Is this a biologically based disorder”
Oft heard remark from insurance companies
Healthcare and insurance industries hold the opinion that if a condition
is physical (biological) it is valid and real; however, if it is psychological
(emotional), then it must not be real (e.g., “in your head”). Why does this
happen Perhaps it is because of the stigma of mental illness that has been
pervasive in society throughout time, or maybe it is because concrete, tangible
things are easier to understand. The assumption that something must be seen
to be “real” creates a failure to acknowledge the psychological as legitimate.
Abstract ambiguous constructs are harder to explain, especially when they
rely on subjective human experience, yet they’re probably equally, if not more
important to validate as “real.”
Perhaps the lack of validation of the psychological as real is a possible
explanation for the mass increase of DSM diagnoses that has occurred over the
last 20 years. We need diagnostic labels to help target the problem; however,
there are pitfalls in biologizing mental health disorders that could ultimately
undermine psychologists and psychotherapy as a “valid” treatment for mental
illnesses. This article explores the authors’ belief that we are dangerously
medicalizing and biologizing both psychology and human nature, and how this
subtly has a detrimental effect on the profession of psychology, marginalized
groups, and subsequently on society as a whole.
THE OHIO PSYCHOLOGIST AUGUST 2008 24