116
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Psychiatric diagnosis: the indispensability of ambivalence

      research-article
      Journal of Medical Ethics
      BMJ Publishing Group
      psychiatric diagnosis, DSM–5, sociology, personal narratives

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The author analyses how debate over the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has tended to privilege certain conceptions of psychiatric diagnosis over others, as well as to polarise positions regarding psychiatric diagnosis. The article aims to muddy the black and white tenor of many discussions regarding psychiatric diagnosis by moving away from the preoccupation with diagnosis as classification and refocusing attention on diagnosis as a temporally and spatially complex, as well as highly mediated process. The article draws on historical, sociological and first-person perspectives regarding psychiatric diagnosis in order to emphasise the conceptual—and potentially ethical—benefits of ambivalence vis-à-vis the achievements and problems of psychiatric diagnosis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Illnesses you have to fight to get: facts as forces in uncertain, emergent illnesses.

          Chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple chemical sensitivity are two clusters of illnesses that are pervaded by medical, social and political uncertainty. This article examines how facts are talked about and experienced in struggles over these emergent, contested illnesses in the US. Based principally on a large archive of internet newsgroup postings, and also on fieldwork and on published debates, it finds that (1) sufferers describe their experiences of being denied healthcare and legitimacy through bureaucratic categories of exclusion as dependent upon their lack of biological facts; (2) institutions manage these exclusions rhetorically through exploiting the open-endedness of science to deny efficacy to new facts; (3) collective patient action responds by archiving the systematic nature of these exclusions and developing counter-tactics. The result is the maintenance of these very expensive struggles for all involved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the emergent space of digital storytelling

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Med Ethics
                J Med Ethics
                medethics
                jme
                Journal of Medical Ethics
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0306-6800
                1473-4257
                August 2014
                10 February 2014
                : 40
                : 8
                : 526-530
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Felicity Callard, Department of Geography and Centre for Medical Humanities, Durham University, Caedmon Building, Leazes Road, Durham DH1 1SZ, UK; felicity.callard@ 123456durham.ac.uk

                An earlier version of this paper was delivered at 'DSM-5 and the Future of Psychiatric Diagnosis: Where is the roadmap taking us?', International Conference, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 4-5 June 2013.

                Article
                medethics-2013-101763
                10.1136/medethics-2013-101763
                4112451
                24515564
                1eac2f7e-2a32-4cfb-a4d3-9416a62b381f
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

                History
                : 12 August 2013
                : 5 November 2013
                : 15 November 2013
                Categories
                1506
                Responses to DSM-5
                Paper
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Ethics
                psychiatric diagnosis,dsm–5,sociology,personal narratives
                Ethics
                psychiatric diagnosis, dsm–5, sociology, personal narratives

                Comments

                Comment on this article