Is there a science of recovery and does it matter ?

Mountain & Shah (2008, this issue) address an interesting issue – the relationship between what they term ‘the recovery approach’ and the ‘medical model’. As scientist–practitioners they acknow ledge a severe problem in their enterprise: the terms ‘recovery’ and ‘medical model’ are both poorly defined, so a systematic analysis of the relationship between the two presents formidable difficulties. They get over this problem by (a) using the particular concept of recovery adopted by Resnick et al (2004a), and (b) using their own definition of the medical model, the somewhat enigmatic ‘does it work?’ (Shah & Mountain, 2007). They then look at the four dimensions of recovery as defined by Resnick et al (2004a,b) – life satisfaction, hope and optimism, empowerment, and information – through the prism of ‘does it work?’ They conclude, to their own satisfaction, that ‘it’ does indeed work – so there is no incompatibility between recovery and the medical model. Although in a formal sense their enterprise is successful the premises they adopt do deserve critical scrutiny.