Historical development of psychiatric classification and mental illness

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (14) ◽  
pp. 890-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Collier
Cinema, MD ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 47-68
Author(s):  
Eelco F.M. Wijdicks

The history of medicine can never be understood without its buildings and its interior. A physical venue is needed to create a healing place for the injured and sick and for medicine to advance. In cinema, hospitals resemble block-like structures loaded with technology. To obtain a better perspective of how hospitals are portrayed in film, this chapter reviews the historical development of the hospital and the history of asylums as places of confinement for patients with mental illness. More than a few films paint hospitals and psychiatric institutions as understaffed with disrespect from top to bottom in the professional hierarchy. This chapter reviews the depiction of hospital wards and psychiatry wards in fictional and documentary film.


Author(s):  
Haim Belmaker ◽  
Rael Strous ◽  
Pesach Lichtenberg

Judaism was the first monotheist religion and has about 18 million adherents in the world today. This review covers the historical development of biblical Israelite religion in the ancient land of Israel beginning 1000 BCE and how it gradually developed into the very different rabbinical Judaism that exists today. While most Jews today are secular participants in Western democratic liberal cultures, Orthodox, and especially ultra-orthodox Jews are a rapidly growing minority with special needs for culturally sensitive psychiatry acceptable to their religious lifestyle and observance to the commandments. The traditional Jewish beliefs in a future Messiah is also a component of some manic states and the differential diagnosis between ‘religiosity’ and mental illness can be important in psychiatric settings with orthodox Jewish patients.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Mason ◽  
Honor Hsin

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.


Author(s):  
Matti Huttunen

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.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt

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.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin

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.


2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document