Levy A
Shalvata Mental Health Center, Israel.
Med Law. 1996;15(2):257-60.
Delusions are evasive to define: (1) Within the process of defining, one uses part of the final conclusion, which should derive from the basic definition (in other words, Circular reasoning); (2) Many, if not most, of so-called normal persons, hold delusion-like ideas; (3) Delusion becomes, usually, more understandable and less bizarre when investigated; (4) Delusions are not unique by remaining resistible to reason; (5) For every delusional content, as bizarre and remote as it may be, there is at least one cultural niche, in which the same content is considered legitimate and reasonable, (if no important and dignified). The forensic implications of these difficulties (to define delusions), will be discussed and elaborated.
(1) 在定义过程中，人们使用了部分最终结论，而该结论本应源自基本定义（换句话说，这是循环推理）；(2) 许多（即便不是大多数）所谓的正常人持有类似妄想的观念；(3) 通常，妄想在被调查时会变得更易于理解且不那么怪异；(4) 妄想并非仅因其抗拒理性而独一无二；(5) 对于每一种妄想内容，无论其多么怪异和离谱，至少存在一个文化环境，在其中相同的内容被视为合理且正当的（如果不是重要且庄重的话）。将对这些（定义妄想的）困难所涉及的法医学意义进行讨论和阐述。
