Clarke L
Mental Health, Faculty of Health and Society Science, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, UK.
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2007 Aug;14(5):446-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2007.01103.x.
At least a dozen articles in this journal have referred directly to the psychiatry of Thomas Szasz, even favourably on occasions. Szasz makes no distinction between the occupational statuses of mental health workers and so his work is relevant to nurses. Szasz's central claims take on renewed vitality given recent developments in forensic care, especially in Britain. In this article, I criticize Szasz's rationale of what constitutes illness as opposed to disease. In addition, I question - in a nuanced way - his views on custodial psychiatry and his use of history to bolster his clams. I also comment on recent developments in biological research and their implications for diagnosing schizophrenia: further, I link the question of such diagnoses to Szasz's assertion that private contracts are the definitive test of what counts as mental illness. Lastly, I ask if improvements in mental health care contradict Szaszian criticisms and/or his seeming inability/unwillingness to acknowledge such changes.
该期刊上至少有十二篇文章直接提及了托马斯·萨斯的精神病学观点，有些时候甚至是持赞许态度。萨斯并未区分心理健康工作者的职业地位，所以他的著作与护士相关。鉴于法医护理领域的最新发展，尤其是在英国，萨斯的核心主张有了新的活力。在本文中，我批评了萨斯关于疾病与病症区分的理论依据。此外，我以一种细致入微的方式质疑了他关于监护精神病学的观点以及他运用历史来支持其主张的做法。我还评论了生物学研究的最新进展及其对精神分裂症诊断的影响：此外，我将此类诊断问题与萨斯的断言联系起来，即私人契约是判定何为精神疾病的决定性标准。最后，我探讨了心理健康护理的改善是否与萨斯的批评相矛盾，以及他似乎无法/不愿意承认此类变化的情况。
