Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wade, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wade, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 20, No. 3, 185-190 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215506cr952ed
© 2006 SAGE Publications

Editorial

Why physical medicine, physical disability and physical rehabilitation? We should abandon Cartesian dualism

Derick Wade

Adjectives are supposed to describe the associated noun more fully or definitively, and the adjective physical is sometimes added to words such as medicine, rehabilitation and disability. What increase in description does its use allow? The adjective was probably added when rehabilitation started to develop for several reasons: it contrasted the mode of treatment with pharmacology and surgery; it contrasted the nature of the supposed aetiology with emotionally generated disorders, especially shell-shock; and it justified the presence of rehabilitation within the profession of medicine. Its continued use, however, perpetuates a Cartesian, dualist philosophy. This editorial uses the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning (WHO ICF) model of illness to analyse its continued use, and concludes that its continued use may disadvantage both patients and the practice of rehabilitation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
J. Gladman, K. Radford, and M. Walker
Letter to the editor
Clinical Rehabilitation, July 1, 2006; 20(7): 635 - 636.
[PDF]