Pushing for the biopsychosocial model

In light of the unified persons with disability (PWD) ID being pushed by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and National Council on Disability Affairs, and the upcoming National Disability Rights Week, has anyone raised concerns about how disability classifications tend to be biomedical in nature?

Concerns about having a unified PWD ID have valid points, such as verification and standardization. However, like the old PWD ID system, how can someone prove that they are indeed disabled? We are still stuck with a biomedical reductionist and physician-centered system, wherein explanations, such as mental illness is caused by chemical imbalance and addiction being a brain disease, are laid down. Not to mention on how we view the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases as dogmatic and rigid authorities, even though it has been mentioned before that these two should be considered as an improper rough guide that continue to change as we have better understanding of disability, functioning, and health.

Government authorities as well as the professional and private sectors should refrain from leaning toward such dogmatic yet reductionist explanations. Only a few have pushed for the adoption of the biopsychosocial model through the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. In the Philippine context, this model should include “cultural” and “technological” aspects. It should complement both the rights-based and social model provided by UNCRPD.