The Delphic nature of the language of psychiatry

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Matti Huttunen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Anthropological Perspective ◽  
Psychiatric Classification ◽  
Clinical Presentations

In this perspective piece, the language used in psychiatric classification is considered from a linguistic and anthropological perspective. It is important for psychiatrists to consider how ambiguous language can impact on their view of clinical presentations and the delivery of treatments. Ultimately, delivering care using an empathic and humane approach should always be a primary consideration when treating mental illness.

‘A more perfect arrangement of plants’: the botanical model in psychiatric nosology, 1676 to the present day

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Mason ◽  
Honor Hsin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Disease Classification ◽  
Evolutionary Models ◽  
Psychiatric Nosology ◽  
Psychiatric Classification ◽  
The Enlightenment ◽  
Over Time

Psychiatric classification remains a complex endeavour; since the Enlightenment, nosologists have made use of various models and metaphors to describe their systems. Here we present the most common model, botanical taxonomy, and trace its history from the nosologies of Sydenham, Sauvages and Linnaeus; to evolutionary models; to the later contributions of Hughlings-Jackson, Kraepelin and Jaspers. Over time, there has been a shift from explicit attempts to pattern disease classification on botanical systems, to a more metaphorical use. We find that changes in the understanding of plants and plant relationships parallel changes in the conceptualization of mental illness. Not only have scientific discoveries influenced the use of metaphor, but the language of metaphor has also both illuminated and constrained psychiatric nosology.

Specific Populations

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna R. Brandon ◽  
Geetha Shivakumar ◽  
Elizabeth H. Anderson ◽  
Anne Drapkin Lyerly
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Ethical Frameworks ◽  
Relative Risks ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
History Of ◽  
Patient Values ◽  
Current Guidelines

It is estimated that more than 500,000 women annually experience a mental illness during pregnancy. Although approximately a third of these women will be prescribed medication, the majority receives no treatment, partly because ethical challenges to including pregnant women in research protocols have impeded studies necessary to establish maternal and fetal effects of medication, appropriate dosing, and the relative risks of undertreated mental illness. Because mental illness is a frequent complication of pregnancy (particularly anxiety and depression), clinicians will be called upon to ethically navigate uncertain treatment recommendations with sensitivity to patient values. The following discussion reviews the history of current guidelines to research with pregnant women, common clinical presentations of women experiencing mental illness in the perinatal context, and relevant ethical frameworks to inform patient care.

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychotropic Medications ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

A Tribute to the Late William J. Curran

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Legal Medicine ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Institute ◽  
University Professor

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.

Commentary

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Behavioral Disorders ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Behavioral Disorder ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
Psychiatric Rating ◽  
Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
Mental And Behavioral Disorders

Abstract The author, who is the editor of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders chapter of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, comments on the previous article, Assessing Mental and Behavioral Disorder Impairment: Overview of Sixth Edition Approaches in this issue of The Guides Newsletter. The new Mental and Behavioral Disorders (M&BD) chapter, like others in the AMA Guides, is a consensus opinion of many authors and thus reflects diverse points of view. Psychiatrists and psychologists continue to struggle with diagnostic taxonomies within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but anxiety, depression, and psychosis are three unequivocal areas of mental illness for which the sixth edition of the AMA Guides provides M&BD impairment rating. Two particular challenges faced the authors of the chapter: how could M&BD disorders be rated (and yet avoid an onslaught of attorney requests for an M&BD rating in conjunction with every physical impairment), and what should be the maximal impairment rating for a mental illness. The sixth edition uses three scales—the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, the Global Assessment of Function, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—after careful review of a wide variety of indices. The AMA Guides remains a work in progress, but the authors of the M&BD chapter have taken an important step toward providing a reasonable method for estimating impairment.

Impairment Tutorial: Functionally Limiting Upper Extremity Pain: Controversies in Impairment Rating

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Illness Behavior ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeon ◽  
First Case ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Physical Examinations ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document