4.2.3 - The Biomedical and Social Models of Health
This lesson compares two major ways of thinking about health and illness. You will learn what the biomedical and social models assume about the body, why sociologists challenge a purely medical explanation of ill health, and how different models shift power between doctors, patients, and service users. This matters in exams because it gives you AO1 knowledge, AO2 examples, and AO3 evaluation on health inequalities, professional power, and policy.
Comparing the two models
The biomedical model has dominated modern medicine for much of the twentieth century. It defines health mainly as the absence of disease and treats illness as a biological malfunction inside the individual body. Its primary focus is diagnosis, treatment and cure rather than wider social structure. The body is treated almost like a machine that can be repaired by specialists.
Biomedical model
A model that defines health mainly as the absence of disease and explains illness through biological malfunction that should be diagnosed and treated by medical experts.
The model fits closely with mind-body dualism, reductionism, and germ theory. Mind-body dualism treats physical illness as separate from social meanings or emotions. Reductionism breaks complex problems into smaller biological causes such as genes, pathogens, or faulty organs. Germ theory strengthened this way of thinking because it linked many diseases to identifiable microorganisms and made technological intervention seem highly effective.
By contrast, the social model of health argues that health is shaped by social, economic, and environmental conditions as well as biology. Sociologists are interested in poverty, housing, nutrition, pollution, stress, work, gender expectations, racism, and access to services because these shape who gets ill, how illness is experienced, and who has the power to define it. This makes the social model more holistic and more closely tied to inequality.
A quick comparison helps show the contrast:
| Dimension | Biomedical model | Social model |
|---|---|---|
| Main cause of illness | Biological malfunction, pathogens, genes | Social determinants such as poverty, housing, work, pollution, and inequality |
| View of the patient | Passive recipient of expert treatment | Active participant or service user with social context |
| Preferred response | Diagnosis, cure, drugs, surgery, technology | Prevention, public health, social reform, community support |
| View of inequality | Often backgrounded | Central to explaining unequal health outcomes |
The social model therefore broadens the meaning of health. It suggests that being healthy is not just about whether a doctor can find disease, but also about whether people have the material and social conditions needed for well-being.
If a neighbourhood has high rates of asthma, a biomedical approach focuses on inhalers, lung tests, and specialist treatment. A social model also asks why many residents may be living in damp housing or near heavy traffic, because preventing illness may require better housing and cleaner air as well as medicine.
Evidence and critique
McKeown argued that much of the historical fall in infectious-disease mortality in England and Wales owed more to improved nutrition and living standards than to curative medicine. He gave sanitation a secondary role; critics argue that public health and sanitary reform deserve greater weight. This is important because it challenges the assumption that better health is mainly the result of doctors and hospitals. His argument supports the social model by showing that social change can transform mortality patterns before effective treatment even exists.
McKeown's work is useful AO3 material because it gives the social model historical evidence, but it is not beyond criticism. He relied heavily on long-run mortality data, which is useful for spotting broad patterns over time, yet such data cannot always prove exactly which cause mattered most. Critics argue that he downplayed public health measures such as vaccination and disease control, so his thesis is strongest as a correction to medical triumphalism rather than a claim that medicine never matters.
Ivan Illich pushed the critique further by arguing that medicine can itself generate harm through iatrogenesis.
Iatrogenesis
Harm caused by medical intervention itself. Illich identified clinical iatrogenesis (direct treatment harm), social iatrogenesis (greater dependence on professionals), and cultural iatrogenesis (weaker ability to deal with pain, illness, and death without medical control).
Illich's argument matters sociologically because it shifts attention from cure to control. If more areas of life are medicalised, ordinary experiences such as ageing, childbirth, sadness, or restlessness can be redefined as conditions needing expert management. That can increase professional authority and reduce lay knowledge.
Vicente Navarro offered a Marxist critique. He argued that the biomedical model individualises illness and hides the structural causes of poor health under capitalism. Instead of asking why some classes and communities are more exposed to dangerous work, poor housing, or polluted environments, medicine often focuses on fixing individuals after the damage is done. From this perspective, the biomedical model can serve capitalist interests by keeping workers productive while leaving inequality intact.
The World Health Organization widened the definition of health by describing it as physical, mental, and social well-being, not just the absence of disease. This idea was later developed by George Engel, whose biopsychosocial model tried to combine biological, psychological, and social factors. Sociologically, this matters because it recognises that health cannot be understood fully if one dimension is treated as the whole story.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account