“Expand our ideas of mental health and wellness” — that’s what Ayesha Bhatti, a PhD student at York’s School of Health Policy & Management, hopes to do with a recently published book chapter.
The chapter is titled “Biomedical Dominance in Mental Healthcare and Policy” and was published in Institutionalized Madness: The Interplay of Psychiatry and Society’s Institutions, a volume of Ethics International Press’ Critical Psychology and Critical Psychiatry Series. Bhatti says her contribution “argues that the biomedical model of mental illness dominates mental healthcare and policy in Canada and negatively affects the health and well-being of Canadians.”
She explains that two factors converged to inspire her to write on this topic. “I was motivated to write this because of my own lived experience as a mental health service user and after hearing about the lived experiences of others,” she says. “I was also motivated to write this because of what I have learned as a PhD student in the health program.”
Her submission begins with a discussion about the nature and prevalence of mental illness among Canadians, then moves into a critical summary of the history of mental health policy, exploring themes such as universal healthcare, neoliberalism, and the institutionalization of those living with mental illness.
It then goes over the impact of the biomedical model on mental healthcare — which “posits that mental disorders are brain diseases and emphasizes pharmacological treatment to target presumed biological abnormalities,” according to Researcher Brett Deacon in Clinical Psychology Review. Bhatti then highlights some of the problems inherent in such a model when it comes to mental health.
“I know that biomedical treatment is effective and plays a role,” she explains, “but I think we also have to look at the role that other factors play.” She lists “living and working conditions, upbringing, and psychology” as just a few of these factors.
For Bhatti, this shift is about recognizing the experience of those in the mental healthcare system. “Some [mental health service users] do feel frustrated with how much focus is put on this biomedical model and biomedical treatment, whereas they find other types of supports and care are also helpful and are also needed.”
To facilitate this shift, Bhatti has hope for public policy’s impact. Since “we know that biology and genes are only a couple of factors that affect our mental health […] public policies should also focus on improving [other] areas of our lives,” she proclaims.
That should ideally include such things as livable wages, affordable housing, access to childcare, and holistic forms of mental health treatment like psychotherapy.
In short, policy should give equal “attention and consideration” to biomedical causes and treatments, as well as social and structural ones. Bhatti hopes to promote that same attention and consideration among readers of her chapter, which is available for purchase, along with other chapters on mental health and social institutions, at Ethics Press.
