Callard Felicity
J Med Ethics. 2014 Aug;40(8):526-30. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101763. Epub 2014 Feb 10.
The author analyses how debate over the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has tended to privilege certain conceptions of psychiatric diagnosis over others, as well as to polarise positions regarding psychiatric diagnosis. The article aims to muddy the black and white tenor of many discussions regarding psychiatric diagnosis by moving away from the preoccupation with diagnosis as classification and refocusing attention on diagnosis as a temporally and spatially complex, as well as highly mediated process. The article draws on historical, sociological and first-person perspectives regarding psychiatric diagnosis in order to emphasise the conceptual-and potentially ethical-benefits of ambivalence vis-à-vis the achievements and problems of psychiatric diagnosis.
作者分析了关于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版的争论如何倾向于赋予某些精神疾病诊断概念高于其他概念的特权，以及如何使关于精神疾病诊断的立场两极分化。本文旨在打破许多关于精神疾病诊断讨论的黑白基调，不再专注于将诊断视为分类，而是将注意力重新聚焦于诊断是一个在时间和空间上复杂且高度中介化的过程。本文借鉴了关于精神疾病诊断的历史、社会学和第一人称视角，以强调在精神疾病诊断的成就和问题方面，矛盾心理在概念上以及潜在的伦理方面的益处。
