The Biopsychosocial Model and Psychiatry's Integrity.

Dear Sir, In an "historical analysis", Lugg asserted: The biopsychosocial (BPS) model remains the predominant theoretical framework underpinning contemporary psychiatric training and practice ... An aetiological model for mental disorders that involves psychological, biological and sociocultural factors has existed since at least the 1940s.[1] After giving some historical background, he attributed this model in its current form to the late gastroenterologist, George Engel, whose paper, I The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine i , was published in I Science i in 1977.[2] There is now a substantial secondary literature, reviewed in my 2020 paper,[3] which shows how Engel made a common-enough mistake. The only integrative model of mind available to psychiatry, extending to mental and personality disorder, is the biocognitive model, 68,000 words starting with first principles, compared with Engel's three.[5] How can people continue to make this mistake? I throw down the gauntlet: in claiming that it has an articulated, integrative "aetiological model for mental disorders", psychiatry is deceiving itself, the funding agencies, the general public, I and i , inexcusably, our students, trainees, and patients. [Extracted from the article]