Adaptive many model medicine trumps monocultural models: comment on the Miles and Mezzich emergent model of modern clinical practice

Abstract

In their provocative and insightful discussion paper, Miles and Mezzich consider two parallel, but philosophically divergent movements in medicine: evidence-based medicine and patient-centered care. They call for the integration or coalescence of these contrasting movements into one model that "combines the strengths of both movements, but which dispenses with the weaknesses of each." I share their goal of placing the person at the center of medicine, rather than subordinating the person to the depersonalized science and technology represented by current models of evidence-based medicine. Yet I envision a person-centered model, indeed any medical model, not as an overriding unified entity, but rather as one component in a complex "many model medicine". I have tried to show elsewhere that the use of many models is likely to produce better outcomes than the dominance of any single model. Multiple models entail multiple perspectives and methods that may be necessary to solve difficult medical problems. This pluralistic view is consistent with Peabody's view, cited in the discussion paper, that medical art and science are not opposites, but are foundational components of medicine.