Western medicine historically has had a very biological approach in how doctors and nurses treated their patients, whereas the field of psychology had evolved from studying the mental and biological phenomenon of the human mind. These fields remained separate specializations of study in Western and European cultures, yet they had coexisted together in Native American, Latino, and Asia cultures for centuries. Descartes theory of dualism is slowly being dismissed and now there are some Western medical theories in place that incorporate some mental and biological factors that have been promoted by other cultures in the past (Lovallo, 2004). The first is the Psychosocial Theory.

The Psychosocial Theories of disease and treatment evolved from the biomedical approach which had a linear, cause and effect vision as to how the disease process worked (Lovallo, 2004). The biomedical path stated that disease is caused by a pathogenic stimulus, it leads to a physiological and biomechanical reaction, and then the disease state is achieved. The Psychosocial Theory furthered this definition of disease by incorporating concepts such as understanding that the body could have disease as a result of sociocultural malfunctioning, psychophysiological dysfunctions, or physiological dysfunction alone (Lovallo, 2004). The understanding of psychosocial theories is very important to further how the medical field understands the relationship between social networks and support and recovery or prevention rates. For example, a group of 90 patients with traumatic brain injury were studied to assess if there was a relationship between the level of social support they received and their recovery rate (Kendall, 2003). The study did account for the differences in brain damage severity but concluded that there were improved vocational recovery rates in the patients with higher levels of social support.

Health psychologists refer to the biopsychosocial model as the conceptual basis for their practice, research, and policy making (Suls and Rothman, 2004). This theory looks at health and illness as a combination of a variety of contributing factors such as genetic predisposition, lifestyle factors, family relationships, social support, and behavior. (Lopez and Jones, 2006; Suls and Rothman, 2004). Engel (1968) concluded that prior to the onset of illness the patients had displayed psychological disturbances such as a feeling of being unable to cope with lifes circumstances which resulted in biological changes that may have altered the patients ability to defend off pathogens resulting in the development of disease. George Engel, a medical doctor who some believe is the founder of the biopsychosocial model, identified five contributing psychological characteristics which were a feeling hopeless or helpless, a decrease in positive self-image, loss of gratification with the roles they play in life with others, blending emotions from the past with the present and projecting them on the future, and focusing on and recalling prior memories of when they had wanted to give up. These symptoms became know as the giving-up-given-up complex and became a foundation for the study of the biopsychosocial model and health psychology. People who suffer from these symptoms demonstrated a negative relationship between their biological performances based upon social networks and psychology (Engel, 1968)

The Diathesis-Stress Model is used to help integrate the biological and genetic factors, or nature factors, with the environmental factors, or nurture factors, that are experienced by an individual with the desire to understand why some individuals are more likely to experience stress in a way that contributes to a disease or psychological disorders (Brannon & Feist, 2004). One study by Barrera, Li, and Chassin (1995) used the diathesis-stress model to perform a cross-sectional study on the effects of having an alcoholic parent on two groups of adolescents which were either Hispanic or non-Hispanic Caucasians. The authors had some interesting hypotheses to test such as what effect did being a minority have on stresses assuming that being in a minority group, being in a different culture, or potentially living in a poorer economic group would have in addition to the stress of having an alcoholic parent. The role of family conflict on how stress was absorbed by adolescents was equally important in this study. In their discussion section the authors concluded that Caucasians had more sensitive reactivity to stresses than did their Hispanic counterparts because they were more vulnerable to the life-event of having an alcoholic parent as the Hispanic family culture is more tightly knit in comparison to the Caucasian family and this reduced the Hispanic participants predisposition for stress, when the stress comes from within the family unit.

Of all these models I personally like the biopsychosocial model the best as I feel it incorporates the Psychosocial Theories of Disease and the Diathesis-Stress Model and is the most comprehensive model of the three.

Barrera, M., Li, S. A., & Chassin, L. (1995). Effects of Parental Alcoholism and Life Stress on Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Caucasian Adolescents: A Prospective Study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(4), 479+. Retrieved June 7, 2007 from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001654936

Brannon, L. & Feist, J. (2004). Health psychology: An introduction to behavior and health (5th Ed.). CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Engel, G. (1968). A life setting conducive to illness: The giving-upgiven-up complex. Annals of Internal Medicine, 69(2).

Kendall, E. (2003). Predicting vocational adjustment following traumatic brain injury: A test of a psychosocial theory. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19(1), 31

More:
Good Psychology - Spirituality, Evolutionary, & Lifespan ...

I have been following with interest Cardinal Gerhard Mller's criticism in April of recent speakers at assemblies of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and its decision to honor St. Joseph Sr. Elizabeth Johnson for her theological writings, some of which have been questioned by the U.S. bishops. According to Mller, prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Such an intense focus on new ideas such as conscious evolution has robbed religious of the ability truly to sentire cum Ecclesia [to think with the church, or embrace its teachings]."

Although I am a male religious, I must admit that I too have focused (a lot but not intensely) on "conscious evolution." The more I've investigated its premises, the more I find it helpful, especially as I engage the many questions about faith that science raises. It also has helped me as I seek credibility (and believability) as a Catholic religious and priest called to proclaim our faith in a world rapidly being defined by new insights arising from physics, neuroscience and cosmology.

When I tell other religious and priests that my exploration of these ideas have made me more conscious of how the Trinity and Christ constitute the source and summit of everything in creation, I sometimes find their first reaction is skepticism or fear. However, when they truly examine the idea for themselves, their resistance turns to enthusiastic acceptance. One example might show what I mean. It involves a group of women religious, a U.S. province of an international congregation whose leadership belongs to LCWR.

The whole community had decided to study "the universe story." However, because some of the sisters knew little about evolution while others feared the idea didn't reflect a "sentire cum Ecclesia" Catholicism, the leaders experienced significant "pockets of resistance."

Because I had explored some of these ideas in my recent book Repair My House: Becoming a "Kindom" Catholic, I was invited to the province. The book had outlined three related points:

The workshop's theme was "How Can We Evolve in Consciousness of Our Connectedness in the Cosmic Christ?" I used a model I've developed that shows that the "economy of salvation" involves us evolving in our consciousness to realize that God's plan for the universe is that Trinitarian and cosmic patterns become embodied in the church and world of today.

As I shared my faith and insights using the Scriptures and Franciscan sources, I felt little or no resistance. Instead, I felt much enthusiasm. Our time together, a member of the provincial council told me later, was successful. A sign of this, she noted, was that it was actually the main topic at subsequent meals. Later she wrote to me: "We in leadership have noted that the sisters' attitudes have changed to a much more hopeful and open-mindedness."

One might ask why a priest like me was led to move in this direction of learning about conscious evolution. Briefly, it was an interview in The Wall Street Journal. The special millennial edition for Saturday, Jan. 1, 2000, included conversations with many experts in various fields. While all were fascinating, the one commanding my attention was the interview with Edward O. Wilson.

Wilson won two Pulitzer Prizes for his works on human nature and community while at Harvard University's Museum of Comparative Zoology. Noting that Wilson had once written that "the predisposition to religious belief is the most powerful and complex in the human mind," The Wall Street Journal interviewer asked him: "How can religion possibly survive what science is doing?" The interviewer's bias, it seemed to me, was clear: Religion is not only irrelevant; it has a short lifespan for any who are truly aware of what science is telling us about our world.

Wilson answered: "The more we understand from science about the way the world really works, all the way from subatomic particles up to the mind and on to the cosmos, the more difficult it is to base spirituality on our ancient mythologies."

See the original post here:
Evolutionary consciousness points to a Trinitarian cosmic ...