It is believed by some that all psychological disorders can be traced to some sort of biological malfunction, especially malfunctions in the nervous system. In other words, in a perfectly formed and perfectly functioning biological organism, there could be no psychological disorder. If this were true, then the "ultimate cure" for any psychological disorder would be a biomedical cure. Explain why

this position does or does not make sense to you.

What will be an ideal response?

If your set of philosophical assumptions includes the belief that all psychological phenomena are products of biological activity, then this position will make sense to you. It says, in essence, that the nervous system is the "organ" of thought, emotion, and personality. Thus, disturbances in these domains should be traceable to malfunctions in the nervous system. Psychological disorders may follow from biological problems that are inborn, or environmental events may lead to biological damage, which then leads to psychological disorder. This explains, at least in part, why the search for biomedical (especially drug) cures is progressing at a rapid pace and, apparently, quite successfully.

Other psychologists, and students, aren't comfortable with this position. One argument is that psychological disorders may indeed be caused by biological malfunction, but, just as environmental events or subjects' behaviors may lead to biological damage, environmental events or behavior changes (including changes in cognitive patterns) could actually lead to repairs of the biological malfunction. Those who don't agree that the mind is a dependent product of the body may believe that some psychological disorders can exist in a perfectly healthy (biological) organism. In these cases, therapies that focus on changing behavior or thought may be considered the most appropriate.