Psychological Disorders Diagnosis Model
The current model used in the diagnosis of psychological disorders has, for a long time, been controversial due to a lack of validity and reliability. Approaches used mostly concentrate on assessing conditions categorically by looking at symptoms. Psychological disorders are different from physical illnesses in that it is difficult to verify them by quantifying evidence. It, therefore, becomes hard to identify causal factors as in the case of physical diseases. Scientists argue that stigmatization and medicalizing actions that violate cultural norms can result from a diagnosis of medical disorders (Scheff, 2003). Categorically assessing mental disorders has not been much helpful in treating illnesses. This paper argues that the current model of diagnosing mental disorders is problematic and is not the best approach to assessing psychological disorders. The discussion will highlight the significant problems that come with the current models of diagnosis.
The DSM has been criticized and has shown to be ineffective. This ineffectiveness is in terms of diagnosis and definition of medical disorders. Insufficient scientific evidence to validate diagnosis when compared to other tools has been a concern. Diagnosis can result in a clash between practitioners, organizations, and policies. There have been complaining concerning the impact of policies necessitating DSM diagnosis codes as undeservedly influencing medical judgments. Doctors have had to base their decisions on laws to make it possible for patients to receive treatment in a particular health center. They have been frustrated by having to conform to the required procedures. They have even had to change a diagnosis to protect the patient. The American Psychiatric Association have defined and labeled deviation from social standard as a medical issue(Conrad, 2007). There has been an exponential increase in the labeling of medical conditions. There is a link between the drug industry and those responsible for developing DSM. this link has contributed to the increase
Mental disorder is a label that can come with implications(Rosenhan, 1973). The argument is that mental disorder is diagnosed discriminately to those who are weak by those with power, leading to the role of being labeled with other people’s influence. this designated role through the control of society can result in mental disorder becoming a prediction that being voiced causes itself to come true. (Scheff, 1975). Prove of selective labeling has been discussed in Ronson’s book The Psychopath Test. The media and society have conditioned people’s perception of mental illnesses; therefore, labeling is applied selectively depending on the social status of the individuals(Ronson, 2012). Labeling also brings about stigma as those diagnosed with the problem face discrimination. This situation makes people hesitate to seek medical assistance.
Another concern about categorical assessment involves the context of symptoms. To ensure that the assessments are reliable, categorical assessments lose the context of an individual. Context is crucial as it helps differentiate symptoms due to disorder and symptoms due to what an individual has experienced in normal life. For instance, being bereaved can cause severe trauma but is normally experienced by most people. Even though they claim to take context into account, clinical depression is focused mainly on prescribing medications. The high number of these diagnoses has been linked to the pharmaceutical industry’s influence, which seeks to favor more medical prescriptions(Greenberg,2014). This problem has also been due to patients’ preferences that are influenced by marketing and medications’ acceptability in society (Conrad, 2007). Patients have trust in their providers, and they do not question the way they approach their mental illness.
Categorical assessment is problematic in the different ways discussed above. Development and enhancement of DSM establish categorical assessment but is lacking in terms of universal acceptability. Depression, paranoia, and schizophrenia need to be approached dimensionally since categorically assessing them has proved ineffective.
References
Scheff, T. J. (1975). Labeling madness. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall
Conrad, P. (2007). The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders (1 edition). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On Being Sane in Insane Places. Science, 179(4070), 250–258. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1735662
Ronson, J. (2012). The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry. New York, N.Y.: Riverhead Books
Greenberg, G. (2014). The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry (Reprint edition). Place of publication not identified: Plume