The concept of "mental disorder" (original) (raw)
Related papers
Why the mental disorder concept matters
The mental disorder concept has not been paid due attention to. The aim of this paper is twofold: first, to assess how much space has been given to the mental disorder concept in textbooks of psychiatry, and second, to show in how many domains both within and beyond psychiatry the mental disorder concept plays a key role. A number of textbooks written in English, German, French, Spanish, and Italian, selected as examples, have been scanned so as to see if there is a chapter dealing with mental disorder, in particular with its definition. Also, the fields in which the mental disorder plays a major role have been identifi ed, and the reasons why the concept of mental disorder is relevant for them have been explored. There is no chapter dealing with the defi nition of mental disorder in some textbooks of psychiatry in English, German, French, Spanish, and Italian that have been selected as examples. Yet there are numerous domains, directly or indirectly related to psychiatry, in which the mental disorder concept is a substantial element. The results show that the concept of mental disorder should be kept high on psychiatric agenda and given due space in textbooks of psychiatry accordingly.
The Philosophy of Mental Disorder
The Philosophy of Mental Disorder, 2024
Gigi Tevzadze's book offers an engaging exploration that takes the reader on a unique journey. This journey cannot be mapped geographically, as it spans an eight-year research process, from the initial development of a research hypothesis to the establishment of a new critical approach. The path traverses the analysis of data gathered from both animal experiments and human observations. The book presents a distinctive perspective on mental disorders and cognitive processes, enabling readers to revisit longstanding questions in a novel way. How does interest emerge? Why and how do we learn? What is the actual purpose of brain activity? What constitutes a mental disorder, and how can it be understood within a new framework of brain functioning? The author addresses these and other compelling questions, with the hope that this approach will pave the way for new avenues in the study of cognitive processes and could significantly improve the quality of life for individuals with mental disorders in the near future. It may also interest readers to know that the author, who serves as the principal investigator of the research detailed in the book, by academic background and research history is a teacher of Philosophy.
What is a mental disorder? An exemplar-focused approach
Psychological Medicine
The question of ‘what is a mental disorder?’ is central to the philosophy of psychiatry, and has crucial practical implications for psychiatric nosology. Rather than approaching the problem in terms of abstractions, we review a series of exemplars – real-world examples of problematic cases that emerged during work on and immediately after DSM-5, with the aim of developing practical guidelines for addressing future proposals. We consider cases where (1) there is harm but no clear dysfunction, (2) there is dysfunction but no clear harm, and (3) there is possible dysfunction and/or harm, but this is controversial for various reasons. We found no specific criteria to determine whether future proposals for new entities should be accepted or rejected; any such proposal will need to be assessed on its particular merits, using practical judgment. Nevertheless, several suggestions for the field emerged. First, while harm is useful for defining mental disorder, some proposed entities may requ...
… , and Humanities in …, 2012
In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM -whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.
What is a mental disorder? A perspective from cognitive-affective science
Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 2013
Defining disease and disorder remains a key conceptual question in philosophy of medicine and psychiatry, and is currently a very practical matter for psychiatric nosology, given the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, and the upcoming International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision. There have been advances in the cognitive-affective science of human categorization, and it is timely to consider implications for our understanding of the category of psychiatric disorder. The category of mental disorder has graded boundaries, and conditions within this category can be conceptualized using MEDICAL or MORAL metaphors. One key set of constructs used in MEDICAL metaphors relates to the notion of dysfunction, and it may, in turn, be useful to conceptualize such dysfunction in evolutionary terms. For typical disorders, it is relatively easy to agree that dysfunction is present. However, for atypical disorders, there may be considerable debate about the presence and extent of dysfunction. Rational arguments can be brought to bear to help decide whether particular entities should be included in our nosologies, and, if so, what their boundaries should be. However, it is appropriate that there should be ongoing debate on diagnostic validity, clinical utility, and other relevant facts and values, for cases that are difficult to decide. The perspective here can be illustrated using many nosological debates within the anxiety disorders and the obsessive-compulsive and related disorders, including the question of delineating normal from abnormal anxiety, of deciding whether anxiety is psychiatric or medical, and the debate about the optimal metastructure for anxiety disorders.
Psychological Medicine What is a mental disorder? An exemplar-focused approach
Psychological Medicine , 2021
The question of 'what is a mental disorder?' is central to the philosophy of psychiatry, and has crucial practical implications for psychiatric nosology. Rather than approaching the problem in terms of abstractions, we review a series of exemplars-real-world examples of problematic cases that emerged during work on and immediately after DSM-5, with the aim of developing practical guidelines for addressing future proposals. We consider cases where (1) there is harm but no clear dysfunction, (2) there is dysfunction but no clear harm, and (3) there is possible dysfunction and/or harm, but this is controversial for various reasons. We found no specific criteria to determine whether future proposals for new entities should be accepted or rejected; any such proposal will need to be assessed on its particular merits, using practical judgment.