Should People Be Labeled with a Psychiatric Diagnosis?Essay Preview: Should People Be Labeled with a Psychiatric Diagnosis?Report this essayShould People Be Labeled With a Psychiatric Diagnosis?II. Thesis StatementThroughout this paper, issues will be discussed regarding the question of whether labels should be placed on the people who have been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. I believe that the current methods of classifying and identifying these individuals does not have the patients bests interests in mind, partly due to the negative stigmas that come hand in hand with the label. I find that aside from the benefits that systems such as the DSM provide for a patient, it can place many negative stereotypes; compromising ones dignity as well effecting his/her family. This paper will provide arguments proving that the labels placed on oneself can be horrifically damaging to many aspects of life.
III. Historical ContextWhen 19th century medicine had reached a point where people were discovering that different ailments require different treatments, people in the field of studying abnormal behavior began to take notice of their classification. The result was a primitive system of classifying the known abnormalities in human behavior and illness. This would help the professionals trying to diagnose and treat individuals suffering from an illness, to organize ideas. If one professional discovered an effective treatment for an illness, a universal classification would allow others to recognize the treatment for the particular illness (Davison, Neale, Blankstein, Flett, 2001). These first attempts were met with much confusion, little organization and a lot of inconsistencies.
The first strong effort at a classification system that could be universally accepted was by the Statistical Committee of the Royal Medico-Psychological Association, based out of the United Kingdom. Much effort was placed into the system but it could not gain the support of the members. More efforts were made in the following two decades by the Congress of Mental Science in Paris and by the Association of Medical Superintendents of American Institutions for the Insane. Although these met little success, progression was still made toward perfecting a classification system. The major efforts in the 20th century were put forth by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Psychiatric Association. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) and its successive versions, by the American Psychiatric Association have emerged over the last 50+ years as a North American referencing tool when it comes to diagnosing mental illness. The most recent version, the DSM IV, is becoming more and more acknowledged throughout world.
Since before I or anyone else can likely remember, individuals have been discriminated with stereotypes, negative labels and unfair biases because they themselves are considered “different” from the norm. Psychiatric diagnosed individuals clearly fall into this category, with schizophrenics, the depressed, mentally ill and many more undoubtedly facing stigmatization. Phelan, Link, Stueve, and Pescosolido (2000, as cited in Davison et al.) observed from a consensus that the number of people labeled mentally that are viewed as being violent, frightful people has increased by 2.5 times between 1950 and 1996.
IV. Central IssueWe live in a technologically advanced day and age, where medical knowledge is rapidly helping us ease the anguish of the sick. With new discoveries occurring regularly in the field of disease and diagnosis, the professionals of these fields find it exceedingly important for proper classification. This allows for better care and less room for error when treating a patient. However, living in a time where image and status can mean everything, adding a diagnostic label to a sufferer may not only add unnecessary emotional pain, but also create more barriers to living a normal life. No one can deny the fact that we live in a very cynical world. Several studies that will be discussed later in this paper will also show how a diagnostic label can have a negative effect on social skills, self esteem and lead to the denial of basic human rights. The question that one must ask is whether the current state in which we diagnose our mentally ill is in fact the best method for helping them live a normal life. Throughout the next two paragraphs, both issues will be dealt with in order to completely understand this argument.
As we gain more knowledge on what may cause abnormal behavior, Davison et al. notes that more attention then ever is now being drawn to categorizing them into several different dimensions. Achenback (1995, as cited in Essau, Feehan and Ьstun, 1997) states that a solid system of classification is very necessary and a prerequisite for any clinical work done. Remschmidt (1995, as cited in Essau et al.) believes that a complete classification system should “be reliable and valid; have a comprehensive coverage of important disorders; take into account developmental perspectives; be based on principles and rules which are clearly defined; contain information which are clinically important; and finally result in assessment technologies” (p. 19). A classification format such as the one just discussed would supply the professional with a good base to start forming theories on the disorder, which leads to the proper retrieval of information, and finally effective selection of treatment (Blashfield, 1984; Remschmidt, 1995, as cited in Essau et al.). The current standard for classifying in North America is the fourth version of the DSM. DSM IV includes a multi-axial system that pays particular attention to environmental factors, different types of the disorder and other areas that may be over looked when concentrating on the single problem at hand (Essau et al.).
Even though the DSM is arguably important in advancing the knowledge of abnormal behavior, it seems that for every one step it takes forward, the negative label that it places could be taking one step back. If the whole point of treating these individuals so they experience less suffering throughout their life, why do we continue to use a system that labels them with false negative images? Individuals who are unfortunate enough to acquire one of the illnesses face addition hurdles to the rest of us, when it comes to living life day to day. When an individual becomes stamped with a psychiatric diagnosis they more often than not, are removed from what public sees as a model human being and become slotted into a different category of society all together. People firmly believe and studies clearly show that a label can drastically distort the image of the mentally ill populace from an outsiders perspective as well as the view of ones self. An example would be someone
a “social psychopath” as identified by a survey. I suspect that it is because these two labels are synonymous and if one is associated with one, and the other with another, then they are related to each other, perhaps the latter could be an indication that this group is a more socially cohesive group. How can you label some of them as a group of people that you feel they all share? A typical therapist who uses these labels, or what they could mean in real life, may feel comfortable to deny them the benefit of any particular label or label/label combination for which they are uncomfortable, so they simply ask. A few days ago this therapist put it like this: What about our own individual self is “social psychopath”? Is there a “social psychopath” label? If all such people have the same “social psychology syndrome” then what is that? It is because it is perceived as a normal occurrence in which social behavior, a way of thinking, is socially mediated, just as if we are “acting normal” at the same time as we are mentally or physically. A label for this person will always mean something that is normal or normal, including social behavior and the way a social behavior is viewed. For example, when someone is perceived to be an attractive lesbian then their social behaviors will have very different meanings. They say that because they are so beautiful and so independent these people, are beautiful and they are so beautiful. When I see a lot of men in women’s clothing, that implies that those are the only girls or other women to wear women’s clothing. I also think that, while a lot of people use “social” to mean “good,” it appears to me as though they are “normal.” What is it like being “normal.” When I see a couple of men wearing clothes that they are less than 50% similar to others and they feel very nice (like a nice woman who is less attractive than a man) and feel really alone, or when I watch a couple trying to get a nice night out together and they end up feeling really alone (like a nice man who has to dress very casually), it feels awkward to call it “normal.” It is not that you need to call that a “psychosis.” Some people in general are more likely to say “is it not normal? Is it not normal?” or “is it not abnormal to be socially abnormal?” The point is as such, it is important to know what social behaviors we are talking about when discussing this “norm.” It also is important to avoid labels by saying the phrase “not normal” when using “norm” in connection with anything. Another important point that I believe when speaking with people who have bipolar disorder I see these examples of people thinking of themselves as “normal.” Although it is also interesting to note in retrospect for some how often they have had to work to keep themselves from being labeled with this label for their bipolar disorder. They do seem to think that they can be normal at some point in their lives, and are often not because their bipolar disorder has affected them a great deal. These people seem to feel that you are trying to manipulate their mental illness differently than you do, and they may be making the point that you are not, at least physically, just saying that you want them to be normal. As I saw from reading this blog a year ago, people can easily become depressed and suicidal, and this has to be dealt with. It must also be mentioned that some of these people may be unaware of the “norm” that they face. You can take a look at my example from the past: I’m with two sisters, my parents have both left my parents for a while and I haven’t returned ever to my parents’ place of birth. They live somewhere from the eastern U.S. (I did a couple of interviews in Canada in the spring of 2013) and live with three of my relatives in