The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 1: Conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis

James Phillips, Allen Frances, Michael A. Cerullo, John Chardavoyne, Hannah S. Decker, Michael B. First, Nassir Ghaemi, Gary Greenberg, Andrew C. Hinderliter, Warren A. Kinghorn, Steven G. LoBello, Elliott B. Martin, Aaron L. Mishara, Joel Paris, Joseph M. Pierre, Ronald W. Pies, Harold A. Pincus, Douglas Porter, Claire Pouncey, Michael A. SchwartzThomas Szasz, Jerome C. Wakefield, G. Scott Waterman, Owen Whooley, Peter Zachar

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    Abstract

    In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Article number3
    JournalPhilosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
    Volume7
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 13 2012

    Fingerprint

    Mental Disorders
    Psychiatry
    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
    Posture
    Aptitude
    France
    Names
    Research Personnel
    Diagnostics
    Real World

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
    • Health Policy
    • History and Philosophy of Science

    Cite this

    The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis : A pluralogue part 1: Conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis. / Phillips, James; Frances, Allen; Cerullo, Michael A.; Chardavoyne, John; Decker, Hannah S.; First, Michael B.; Ghaemi, Nassir; Greenberg, Gary; Hinderliter, Andrew C.; Kinghorn, Warren A.; LoBello, Steven G.; Martin, Elliott B.; Mishara, Aaron L.; Paris, Joel; Pierre, Joseph M.; Pies, Ronald W.; Pincus, Harold A.; Porter, Douglas; Pouncey, Claire; Schwartz, Michael A.; Szasz, Thomas; Wakefield, Jerome C.; Waterman, G. Scott; Whooley, Owen; Zachar, Peter.

    In: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 1, 3, 13.01.2012.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    Phillips, J, Frances, A, Cerullo, MA, Chardavoyne, J, Decker, HS, First, MB, Ghaemi, N, Greenberg, G, Hinderliter, AC, Kinghorn, WA, LoBello, SG, Martin, EB, Mishara, AL, Paris, J, Pierre, JM, Pies, RW, Pincus, HA, Porter, D, Pouncey, C, Schwartz, MA, Szasz, T, Wakefield, JC, Waterman, GS, Whooley, O & Zachar, P 2012, 'The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 1: Conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis', Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, vol. 7, no. 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-7-3
    Phillips, James ; Frances, Allen ; Cerullo, Michael A. ; Chardavoyne, John ; Decker, Hannah S. ; First, Michael B. ; Ghaemi, Nassir ; Greenberg, Gary ; Hinderliter, Andrew C. ; Kinghorn, Warren A. ; LoBello, Steven G. ; Martin, Elliott B. ; Mishara, Aaron L. ; Paris, Joel ; Pierre, Joseph M. ; Pies, Ronald W. ; Pincus, Harold A. ; Porter, Douglas ; Pouncey, Claire ; Schwartz, Michael A. ; Szasz, Thomas ; Wakefield, Jerome C. ; Waterman, G. Scott ; Whooley, Owen ; Zachar, Peter. / The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis : A pluralogue part 1: Conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis. In: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. 1.
    @article{eddd6a668dfe440c807f84f9f8a95e6e,
    title = "The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 1: Conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis",
    abstract = "In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.",
    author = "James Phillips and Allen Frances and Cerullo, {Michael A.} and John Chardavoyne and Decker, {Hannah S.} and First, {Michael B.} and Nassir Ghaemi and Gary Greenberg and Hinderliter, {Andrew C.} and Kinghorn, {Warren A.} and LoBello, {Steven G.} and Martin, {Elliott B.} and Mishara, {Aaron L.} and Joel Paris and Pierre, {Joseph M.} and Pies, {Ronald W.} and Pincus, {Harold A.} and Douglas Porter and Claire Pouncey and Schwartz, {Michael A.} and Thomas Szasz and Wakefield, {Jerome C.} and Waterman, {G. Scott} and Owen Whooley and Peter Zachar",
    year = "2012",
    month = "1",
    day = "13",
    doi = "10.1186/1747-5341-7-3",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "7",
    journal = "Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine",
    issn = "1747-5341",
    publisher = "BioMed Central",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis

    T2 - A pluralogue part 1: Conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis

    AU - Phillips, James

    AU - Frances, Allen

    AU - Cerullo, Michael A.

    AU - Chardavoyne, John

    AU - Decker, Hannah S.

    AU - First, Michael B.

    AU - Ghaemi, Nassir

    AU - Greenberg, Gary

    AU - Hinderliter, Andrew C.

    AU - Kinghorn, Warren A.

    AU - LoBello, Steven G.

    AU - Martin, Elliott B.

    AU - Mishara, Aaron L.

    AU - Paris, Joel

    AU - Pierre, Joseph M.

    AU - Pies, Ronald W.

    AU - Pincus, Harold A.

    AU - Porter, Douglas

    AU - Pouncey, Claire

    AU - Schwartz, Michael A.

    AU - Szasz, Thomas

    AU - Wakefield, Jerome C.

    AU - Waterman, G. Scott

    AU - Whooley, Owen

    AU - Zachar, Peter

    PY - 2012/1/13

    Y1 - 2012/1/13

    N2 - In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

    AB - In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855723436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855723436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1186/1747-5341-7-3

    DO - 10.1186/1747-5341-7-3

    M3 - Review article

    C2 - 22243994

    AN - SCOPUS:84855723436

    VL - 7

    JO - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

    JF - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

    SN - 1747-5341

    IS - 1

    M1 - 3

    ER -