But psychiatric diagnosis is neither valid nor reliable - it *isn't*
accurate. So-called 'co-morbidity' - meeting the criteria for more than
one diagnosis at the same time - is the norm rather than the exception.
There's lots of evidence for this, some of it summarised succinctly in
Bentall's "Madness Explained". There are also deeper, conceptual
problems with psychiatric diagnosis; see for example Kirk and Kutchins
"Making us Crazy" and for probably the most telling analysis of all Mary
Boyle's "Schizophrenia: a scientific delusion".
The unreliability and invalidity of psychiatric diagnosis not only makes
it problematic for all of the uses suggested, it also has other, malign
effects: it distorts research, obstructs efforts at prevention, and
raises profound ethical issues (I'm leaning on Mary Boyle again here, a
short article she wrote recently in The Psychologist). Oh, and see
Carl's posting about its role in legitimating toxic power relations, too.
J.
Tim Anstiss wrote:
> Doesn't it work a little like medical diagnosis, sometime?
>
> If I am told someone is having panic attacks, that provides me with some information about that person, rather than providing me with a longer description of symptoms. Similarly, depression.
>
> It doesn't tell me anything about why they have these symptom clusters, nor anything about other aspects of the persons situation, context, environment, past exposures, etc.
>
> But if the diagnosis is accurate, it does provide me with information, surely?
>
> Also, if I wanted to learn about the "causes" of some syndromes, or learn about what works in helping people recover from some syndromes, or whether or not some syndromes are becoming more common over time, then again, some way of "classifying" syndromes is surely helpful.
>
> Of course, if you are not interested in discovering causes, uncovering trends or discovering "remedies" then diagnostic labels may be if little use.
>
> So I still think that psyciatric diagnosis fulfills some functions / purpose that other tasks do not. Whether or not you want to do these things is another matter.
>
> So, can the tasks I describe above be fulfilled by some non-diagnostic activity?
>
> Tim
>
> John Cromby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The discussion on this thread is specifically about *psychiatric*
> diagnosis. I didn't spell that out because I imagined it was clear in
> the context. In this regard, see Paul's post on the distinction between
> being anti-psychiatry and being anti the medical model.
>
> If psychiatric diagnosis actually did work like medical diagnosis, for
> example of diabetes, perhaps there wouldn't be so much opposition to it.
> But it doesn't.
>
> J.
>
>
> Tim Anstiss wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> I understand diagosis to help us talk about conditions without going into a huge description, and also to help with research into causes and treatments.
>>
>> for instance, if I am told someone has type II diabetes, I know something about their physiology, the kind of conditions they are more at risk of, and the kind of things that may help them not go blind, lose a foot, or develop renal failure. I can also get a group of people with type ii diabetes together, and see if something helps them stay healthy, etc.
>>
>> Also, when I am talking with another clinician, I can communicate lots of information to them about the person/patient, by telling them that they have a diagnosis of type ii diabetes. And the patient themselves can discover information about their physiology, metabolism and prognosis by searching for information about diabetes.
>>
>> So for me, a diagnosis is shorthand for a longer description about something, and helps with communication and research.
>>
>> It can also be unhelpful in several ways, but that was not what you asked about.
>>
>> If anyone can tell me how these benefits can be provided in a way other than diagnosis, that would be helpful.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> John Cromby wrote:
>> Can anyone participating in this discussion simply state what concrete
>> benefits diagnosis provides that couldn't possibly be provided in any
>> other way?
>>
>> Doing so would surely facilitate the creation of a Habermasian space of
>> communicative rationality.
>>
>> J.
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
>> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
>> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
>> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
>> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ___________________________________
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]
|