Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Psychiatric Diagnosis As A Political Device Science Journal
Psychiatric Diagnosis As A Political Device Science Journal
Joanna Moncrief
Published in Department of Mental Health Sciences, University College London,
Gower Street / June 2015
A CRITIQUE
Submitted to
JOZEL GODEZANO
For
BIOCHEM 131 / BIOCHEMISTRY
School of Undergraduate Studies
Centro Escolar University, Gil Puyat
On
14 JULY 2015
By
VILLASPER, Denise Anne C.
BSMT2A 1425335
QUIOGUE, Stephen Jaihma R.
BSMT2A - 1425337
TUPA, Eugene T.
BSMT2A - 1426055
SARMIENTO, Lean O.
BSMT2A - 1425378
ABALOS, Mary Lois A.
BSMT2A 1425365
2. Hypothesis Tested
The study followed only one hypothesis and that is to address the fact that
Psychiatric Diagnosis has been a device for political means and will not continue to
fund for patients whose illnesses are not curable. The job of psychiatrists is to
identify these real disorders and to make sure that the people who have them get
the drugs, however if the government sees that there is no evidence their mental
illness is not yet known, curable or stable, they would cut the monetary aid for the
said patient.
The whole content of this study, assume that psychiatry is basically the same
sort of activity as physical medicine, easily distinguishing those who have clinical or
major depressions from those who are just sad or discontent, and once identified
prescribe a treatment that targets the origin of the problem. Although this study is
entitled Psychiatric Diagnosis as a political device, it focuses more on proving that
you cannot cure these certain diseases with medicine, no blood test, x-ray or brain
scan can reveal depression, schizophrenia or any other mental disorder. There is no
underlying psychological process either that can somehow be separated off from an
individuals feelings and behaviour and designated as the disorder. It was not until
the Case Studies part wherein Moncrieff discussed why Psychiatric Diagnosis is
considered a political device.
3. Experimental Approach
3.1 Bill
At the age of 29, Bill was first admitted to a psychiatric hospital. For the next
few years he went in and out of the hospital and when he reached the age of 30, his
father could no longer cope with him so they decided to admit him as a long-stay
patient. During his early years in the hospital he was diagnosed with cases like
schizophrenia but had no concrete proof and was treated with injectable and oral
antipsychotic medication.
3.2 Tanya
Tanya is a 19-year-old girl who has been under the care of psychiatric
services since she was 12. She is an inpatient because her mother could no longer
cope with her at home. She was treated with 5 antipsychotic drugs but these have
been changed due to adverse effects and lack of improvement. She periodically
receives sedative drugs and she has a rehabilitation program consisting of therapy
and other supervised activity.
4.1 Bill
A few years later a new psychiatric team was assigned to Bill and they
decided that there was no basis for the diagnosis of schizophrenia so they reduced
the dose of the antipsychotic medications. However his violent behavior became
more frequent so they decided to increase his medications again. A year later he
violently attacked another patient which resulted in serious injuries. Although he
was arrested, there were no charges filed against him. Shortly after, Bill attacked a
staff and because of this he was transferred to a locked ward. In the section papers
he was given a diagnosis of psychopathic disorder and he was detained so
treatment may improve his condition. In the end, the state refused to continue
funding Bills medication due to lack of evidence that will prove that he is suffering
from schizophrenia.
4.2 Tanya
Unlike Bill, Tanya has a behavioral pattern identified with schizophrenia and
was detained using the mental health act. The diagnosis also entails that she is
cared for in a state-funded institution and when the time comes for her to be
discharged from hospital the state will fund her ongoing care in a staffed.
In considering the two cases (Bill and Tanya) we can draw significance from
the results of the psychiatric diagnosis in determining policy directions of the state.
The journal is vague in such way that it creates the impression that the
subject of the journal is about the comparison of the psychiatric and physical
diseases. The journal also failed to adequately explain the use of psychiatric
diagnosis from political point of view.
5. Conclusion
This part of the paper proves how psychiatric diagnosis acts as a political
device, in which the State chose to focus on Tanyas treatment rather than Bills
because she had a clearer path of what is going on with her. On the other hand,
Bills unknown mental illness could not benefit the State thus cutting of his funds for
diagnosis. The patients stories demonstrate how psychiatric diagnosis facilitates
the control of funding for the State, they are more interested on people who exhibit
antisocial behaviors specifically on this journal- Schizophrenia, whom the criminal
justice system does want to entertain. The scientific journal has a biased stand; it
could have been clearer if Moncrieff included another case because she only used
two: Tanya and Bills. It was also blurry of what had happened to the two after
cutting of Bills funds and continued Tanyas.
6. References