A Biomedical Model of Disability

In this model, it is believed that disability hinders the person, and that it originated through a biological or physiological malfunction, with an emphasis on the restrictions the person faces. The focus on this model is on the individual and does not incorporate the role of the organisation. This model does not take into account outside influences on the individual’s capability for activity nor does it include the effect of outside organisations (Ahmad, 2007; Shapiro et al., 2012; Shakespeare, 2006). Kasser and Lytle (2005) explained that traditionally, people with disabilities were categorised purely on the type of disability they were suffering from or by the fact that they had a disability. Shapiro et al., (2012) and DePauw and Gavron (2005) also pointed out that, in the past, the biomedical model meant that people with disability were subjected to unfounded stigma and were prevented from partaking in

77

group exercise, leaving people with disability segregated from the larger, non- disabled groups.

Le Clair (2011) wrote that the medical model focused on the individual so indeed there is a need to understand the role of organisation within this framework. An individual can only go so far and there is a need to understand the role of disability organisations in how they have facilitated such issues. Clapton and Fitzgerald (2005) further argued that a ‘religious model’ was the predecessor to the biomedical model, believing that faith had a large role in disability. Recent critical disability studies have challenged the biomedical model which located the “truth” of disability in the “abnormal body”, and moved towards the use of a progressive social model of disability. Smart (2009) wrote that the biomedical model ignores the social aspects of disablement and treats all individuals with the same diagnosis, which leads to the term of “diagnosis-driven” rather than “individual-focused”. This implies that the model focuses on the individual rather than on the effects of organisations which is a major limitation when understanding change.

From a medical perspective, disability leaves people with a catastrophic hindrance, and this model sets out to determine the types of ill-health through examining issues with psychology, behaviour and interaction (Ahmad, 2007; Al-Zyoud, 2011). It has been suggested that once specialists in a particular area have created the theory and the terminology related to it, it requires the help of other specialists if this is to be refuted (O’Donnell, 1997). O’Donnell (1997, p. 99) further pointed out that this ability gives medical professionals a sense of authority in the field, and that this runs alongside ‘discipline and control’. The medical sector is now (particularly in the Western world) able to govern a large number of concepts because the professionals working in this sector are capable of treating ill-health and providing an understanding of it through specialised terminology (Brittain, 2004), but this terminology fails to appreciate the role of organisations and not just the work of professionals.

In the medical model, disability is viewed as having only a biological cause meaning that the challenges encountered by people with disability have no correlation to external influences, such as their surroundings, politics or society. Furthermore, the

78

terminology and theoretical stances of the medical model have been a key cause of the social stigma surrounding disability (Brittain, 2004). Wendell (1996) followed up this point by stating this is because medical opinion has the power to sway all kinds of organisations, from non-profits to insurance firms, educational establishments to law courts and various healthcare establishments to government departments. Medical professionals also exercise considerable authority with all types of employers, certifying people medically capable or incapable of working. This means that everyone (both disabled people and those without disabilities) is swayed by the wide prevalence of one viewpoint of disability: that it is a hindering factor that excludes disabled people from certain activities or ways of living, as according to the medical model (Brittain, 2004).

Addelson (1983; in Wendell, 1996: p. 117) called this ‘cognitive authority’, meaning that the biomedical field has the power to change the way people think about disability. This leads to the belief that people with disability is down to internal issues, for both the people with disability and the various establishments mentioned above. Consequently, regulations are shaped by this belief, and there is a general consensus on the medical view of disability, in which disabled people are under the control of these regulations or establishments (Shakespeare, 2006). It can be argued that people with disability are the best qualified to explain and create terminology and theory regarding disability, rather than the medical profession alone, which has built a deeply-instilled theory on disability, which does not necessarily help people with disability in the most effective way. However, since the biomedical model of disability is so widely held, this leaves little room for a persuasive argument against the medical model in overall society (Brittain, 2004).

Before we move onto the social model of disability, it is necessary to outline that the medical model has been the dominant ideological force surrounding discussions of disability in both the past and the present. In summary, the biomedical model has served to situate disabled people within the realm of rehabilitation. This has given rise to a number of rehabilitation institutions such as clinics and centres at the expense of setting up other organisations capable of helping disabled people, including recruitment agencies, leisure and sport organisations.

79