当前位置: X-MOL 学术Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Harm should not be a necessary criterion for mental disorder: some reflections on the DSM-5 definition of mental disorder.
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics ( IF 1.1 ) Pub Date : 2019-09-18 , DOI: 10.1007/s11017-019-09499-4
Maria Cristina Amoretti 1 , Elisabetta Lalumera 2
Affiliation  

The general definition of mental disorder stated in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders seems to identify a mental disorder with a harmful dysfunction. However, the presence of distress or disability, which may be bracketed as the presence of harm, is taken to be merely usual, and thus not a necessary requirement: a mental disorder can be diagnosed as such even if there is no harm at all. In this paper, we focus on the harm requirement. First, we clarify what it means to say that the harm requirement is not necessary for defining the general concept of mental disorder. In this respect, we briefly examine the two components of harm, distress and disability, and then trace a distinction between mental disorder tokens and mental disorder types. Second, we argue that the decision not to regard the harm requirement as a necessary criterion for mental disorder is tenable for a number of practical and theoretical reasons, some pertaining to conceptual issues surrounding the two components of harm and others pertaining to the problem of false negatives and the status of psychiatry vis-à-vis somatic medicine. However, we believe that the harm requirement can be (provisionally) maintained among the specific diagnostic criteria of certain individual mental disorders. More precisely, we argue that insofar as the harm requirement is needed among the specific diagnostic criteria of certain individual mental disorders, it should be unpacked and clarified.

中文翻译:

伤害不应该是精神障碍的必要标准:对DSM-5精神障碍定义的一些思考。

《精神障碍诊断和统计手册》第五版中所述的精神障碍的一般定义似乎识别出具有有害功能障碍的精神障碍。但是,遇险或残障的存在可能被归类为伤害的存在,这被认为只是通常的情况,因此不是必需的要求:即使根本没有伤害,也可以诊断出精神障碍。在本文中,我们重点关注危害要求。首先,我们弄清楚说伤害要求对于定义精神障碍的一般概念是没有必要的。在这方面,我们简要地考察了伤害,痛苦和残疾的两个组成部分,然后追溯精神障碍标记和精神障碍类型之间的区别。其次,我们认为,出于多种实际和理论原因,不将伤害要求视为精神障碍的必要标准的决定是可以成立的,一些与围绕伤害的两个组成部分的概念性问题有关,另一些与假阴性和精神病相对于体医学的状况有关。但是,我们认为可以(临时)在某些个别精神障碍的特定诊断标准中维持对伤害的要求。更确切地说,我们认为,就某些个别精神障碍的特定诊断标准而言,在需要伤害要求的范围内,应对其进行包装和阐明。我们认为,在某些个别精神障碍的特定诊断标准中,可以(暂时)维持伤害要求。更确切地说,我们认为,就某些个别精神障碍的特定诊断标准而言,在需要伤害要求的范围内,应对其进行包装和阐明。我们认为,在某些个别精神障碍的特定诊断标准中,可以(暂时)维持伤害要求。更确切地说,我们认为,就某些个别精神障碍的特定诊断标准而言,在需要伤害要求的范围内,应对其进行包装和阐明。
更新日期:2019-09-18
down
wechat
bug