Overall, I think the biopsychosocial framework for evaluating disease and illness, and especially the principles it underscores, is important when approaching something like psychopathy. It essentially emphasizes a biological, psychological, and environmental view on addressing healthcare as well as treatment. In the same manner that this framework solves problems, it also presents new problems, as any viable solution does. Defining personal health through this model has several positive effects. Not only does it seem to alter what we perceive to be as the norm or status quo of health, making it less a concrete state and more so fluid and ever shifting, but also promotes better personal psychological well-being and a more stable social life as those are personal steps one can take to improve health how they feel. That being said there are a couple of limitations it presents. In claiming that this is how all healthcare-related issues should be addressed, it makes it seem implicit that each issue actually has relevant components to all three disciplines, which may or may not be true. While I think it is better to assume all three factors are possible and investigate each thoroughly, rather than not assume and miss something critical, I also believe sometimes this could confound potentially simpler diagnoses. While people may argue they don’t know to which extent or degree they should include each factor, I think this is the point of the BPS model: that each could be present, each case is circumstantial and thus should be unique in how you approach it.