What describes the medical model of disability?

September 30, 2025 •

4 min read

Historically, the medical model has been a dominant framework for understanding disability, viewing it primarily as a physical or mental impairment intrinsic to the individual. Understanding what describes the medical model of disability is crucial for recognizing how it has influenced healthcare practices, societal attitudes, and the lives of people with disabilities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Quick Summary

The medical model frames disability as a medical deficit residing within an individual, requiring treatment or cure from medical professionals. Its focus is on the impairment, aiming for normalization rather than addressing external societal barriers that create disabling conditions. This contrasts sharply with the social model's perspective.

Key Points

Individual Problem: The medical model views disability as a problem or defect intrinsic to the individual's body or mind.
Focus on Cure: The primary goal is to cure, treat, or manage the impairment through medical and rehabilitation interventions.
Medical Authority: Medical professionals are considered the primary experts, with the authority to define and manage disability.
Normalization as Goal: The ultimate aim is to make the disabled person as 'normal' as possible, rather than accommodating their difference.
Neglects Social Barriers: The model often overlooks the role of societal attitudes, discrimination, and physical barriers in creating and perpetuating disability.
Source of Stigma: This perspective can lead to stigmatization by framing disability as an abnormality or a personal tragedy.
Contrasts with Social Model: It stands in stark contrast to the social model, which locates disability within an unaccommodating society rather than the individual.

Core Tenets of the Medical Model of Disability

The medical model of disability is a conceptual framework that has profoundly shaped healthcare and public policy for centuries. Its central premise is that disability is a direct result of a person's physical or mental impairment, which is seen as a deviation from the 'normal' state. This perspective places the 'problem' of disability squarely within the individual, rather than within an unaccommodating society. From this viewpoint, the appropriate response to disability is to treat, manage, or cure the individual's condition through medical intervention.

The Role of Medical Professionals

Within this model, medical professionals, such as doctors, therapists, and rehabilitation specialists, are considered the primary experts on disability. They are tasked with diagnosing the impairment, determining a course of treatment, and managing the condition. This creates a power dynamic where the disabled person is often the passive recipient of care, with professionals dictating the path toward normalization. The model's language is often clinical and diagnostic, further reinforcing the idea of disability as a medical pathology.

The Goal of Normalization

A key objective of the medical model is the concept of 'normalization,' or returning the individual's function to as close to 'normal' as possible. This can involve a range of interventions, from surgeries and medications to assistive technologies like prosthetics and hearing aids. While these medical advancements can be beneficial, the model's single-minded focus on normalization can inadvertently devalue a disabled person's identity and life experience if it cannot be fully 'fixed'. Critically, it directs substantial resources toward individual medical solutions rather than broader societal changes, such as improved accessibility or inclusive education.

Critiques and Limitations of the Medical Model

The medical model has faced significant criticism, largely from disability rights advocates and scholars, for its narrow perspective and negative consequences. These critiques highlight how the model can be stigmatizing and disempowering for disabled individuals.

Key weaknesses include:

Perpetuates Stigma: By framing disability as an abnormality or defect, the model can contribute to negative perceptions and stereotypes, fostering a culture of pity or marginalization.
Individualizes the Problem: It places the burden of disability on the individual to adapt and overcome their limitations, rather than holding society accountable for creating and maintaining barriers. For example, under the medical model, a person who uses a wheelchair is unable to enter a building because of their inability to walk, whereas the social model would state the building is inaccessible due to a lack of a ramp.
Ignores Social Factors: The model often overlooks the impact of environmental factors, social attitudes, and systemic discrimination in creating barriers and disadvantages for people with disabilities.
Marginalizes Disabled Voices: Historically, it has prioritized the perspectives of medical professionals, leading to a loss of autonomy for disabled people, whose lived experiences are often ignored in treatment decisions and policy development.
Risks Dehumanization: The intense focus on the medical condition can sometimes lead to depersonalization, where the person is defined by their diagnosis rather than their full identity.

Medical Model vs. Social Model of Disability

The most prominent contrast to the medical model is the social model of disability, which arose from the disability rights movement to challenge the medicalized view. The table below outlines the fundamental differences between these two perspectives.


Aspect	Medical Model View	Social Model View
Problem Location	The problem lies within the individual due to an impairment.	The problem lies within society and its barriers (physical, attitudinal, organizational).
Goal	To cure, treat, or manage the individual's impairment to make them more 'normal.'	To remove societal barriers and promote full inclusion, empowering people with disabilities.
Agent of Change	Medical and rehabilitation professionals.	People with disabilities and disability advocates, in partnership with society.
Focus	An individual's limitations and deficits.	The societal and environmental structures that create disability.
Identity	Disability is a misfortune or tragedy.	Disability is an aspect of identity and human diversity.
Language	Clinical and pathological (e.g., 'suffers from,' 'confined to').	Affirming and empowering (e.g., 'person with a disability,' 'disabled person').

Moving Beyond the Medical Model: Towards a More Integrated View

While the medical model has provided valuable advances in medical care, its limitations have spurred a broader evolution in thinking about disability. Integrated approaches, such as the biopsychosocial model endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), attempt to incorporate both individual health conditions and external contextual factors. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), for example, views disability as the interaction between an individual with a health condition and personal and environmental factors.

This shift represents a movement away from viewing disability as a fixed, internal pathology and toward a more dynamic understanding that acknowledges the complex interplay between an individual's biology, their environment, and societal attitudes. The emphasis moves from merely 'fixing' the individual to creating a more accessible, inclusive, and equitable society for everyone. This reflects a more holistic perspective that values diversity and human rights over the rigid adherence to an idealized 'normal' state.

Conclusion

In conclusion, what describes the medical model of disability is a framework that pathologizes impairment, locates the problem within the individual, and prioritizes cure or normalization through medical intervention. While it has driven significant medical advancements, it has been heavily criticized by disability advocates for its narrow, deficit-focused view and for ignoring the disabling effects of societal barriers. The rise of the social model and more integrated frameworks has provided a necessary counterpoint, emphasizing that disability is a social and environmental issue, not just an individual tragedy. Recognizing the limitations of the medical model is a vital step toward fostering a more inclusive and just society that embraces human diversity in all its forms.

For more information on the different ways disability is conceptualized, the American Psychological Association offers a deeper dive into the topic: Conceptualizing Disability: Three Models of Disability.

Frequently Asked Questions

The medical model views disability as an individual problem caused by an impairment that needs to be fixed. The social model, conversely, sees disability as a societal problem caused by barriers and attitudes that exclude people with impairments.

Within the medical model, impairment is seen as a physical or mental loss or abnormality that is inherently pathological. This impairment is considered the direct cause of the individual's limitations and is targeted for medical treatment or cure.

Major criticisms include that it can stigmatize people by framing disability as a defect, ignores social and environmental factors, marginalizes the voices of disabled people, and focuses solely on normalization rather than inclusion.

The medical model places the burden of overcoming disability on the individual. It implies that the disabled person must adjust and change their behavior to fit into a non-disabled world, rather than society changing to accommodate them.

The model has led to a focus on diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation aimed at addressing specific impairments. While it has spurred medical advancements, it has also resulted in practices that can overlook patient autonomy and a holistic view of well-being.

Normalization is the goal of making a disabled person as close to 'normal' as possible by correcting their impairment. The medical model often uses this concept to justify interventions that help disabled people conform to the expectations of able-bodied society.

While it is no longer the sole dominant view, aspects of the medical model still persist in healthcare and some public policies. However, it is increasingly being challenged and complemented by more inclusive and integrated models, such as the biopsychosocial model.