Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Must disorders cause harm?

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Must disorders cause harm?: the changing stance of the DSM

Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSNChapter (peer-reviewed)peer-review

Published

Standard

Must disorders cause harm? the changing stance of the DSM. / Cooper, Rachel Valerie.
The DSM-5 in perspective: philosophical reflections on the psychiatric babel. ed. / Steeves Demazeux; Patrick Singy. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015. p. 83-96 (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences; Vol. 10).

Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSNChapter (peer-reviewed)peer-review

Harvard

Cooper, RV 2015, Must disorders cause harm? the changing stance of the DSM. in S Demazeux & P Singy (eds), The DSM-5 in perspective: philosophical reflections on the psychiatric babel. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol. 10, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9765-8_5

APA

Cooper, R. V. (2015). Must disorders cause harm? the changing stance of the DSM. In S. Demazeux, & P. Singy (Eds.), The DSM-5 in perspective: philosophical reflections on the psychiatric babel (pp. 83-96). (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences; Vol. 10). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9765-8_5

Vancouver

Cooper RV. Must disorders cause harm? the changing stance of the DSM. In Demazeux S, Singy P, editors, The DSM-5 in perspective: philosophical reflections on the psychiatric babel. Dordrecht: Springer. 2015. p. 83-96. (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences). doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9765-8_5

Author

Cooper, Rachel Valerie. / Must disorders cause harm? the changing stance of the DSM. The DSM-5 in perspective: philosophical reflections on the psychiatric babel. editor / Steeves Demazeux ; Patrick Singy. Dordrecht : Springer, 2015. pp. 83-96 (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences).

Bibtex

@inbook{edc327d2dc654ee99335e880c9165258,
title = "Must disorders cause harm?: the changing stance of the DSM",
abstract = "Are mental disorders harmful as a matter of definition, or are they simply conditions that quite often cause problems? Should someone who has “symptoms” but who suffers no harm be diagnosed with a mental disorder? In this chapter I shall show that these are crucial questions buthave not been given the attention they deserve. The idea that disorders are linked to “distress or impairment” was first explicitly introduced into the DSM in the DSM-III. This criterion originally came to be introduced following the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. In the DSM-IV both the general definition of mental disorder contained in the introduction and many of the individual diagnostic criteria sets required that symptoms cause (or at least increase the risk of) distress or impairment before a disorder could be diagnosed. In DSM-5 the requirement that disorders cause harm, or an increased risk of harm, has been dropped from the definition of mental disorder. This matters because many people have the “symptoms” of mental disorder but suffer no distress or impairment, and are not plausibly at an increased risk of suffering distress or impairment in the future. Under DSM-IV such people could not be diagnosed, now they may be. This chapter offers a philosophical history. I show how the conceptualisation of the link between harm and disorder has shifted through the different editions of the DSM, and make it clear why this matters.",
keywords = "DSM - Harm - Definition of mental disorder - Distress and",
author = "Cooper, {Rachel Valerie}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1007/978-94-017-9765-8_5",
language = "English",
isbn = "9789401797641",
series = "History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences",
publisher = "Springer",
pages = "83--96",
editor = "Steeves Demazeux and Patrick Singy",
booktitle = "The DSM-5 in perspective",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - Must disorders cause harm?

T2 - the changing stance of the DSM

AU - Cooper, Rachel Valerie

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Are mental disorders harmful as a matter of definition, or are they simply conditions that quite often cause problems? Should someone who has “symptoms” but who suffers no harm be diagnosed with a mental disorder? In this chapter I shall show that these are crucial questions buthave not been given the attention they deserve. The idea that disorders are linked to “distress or impairment” was first explicitly introduced into the DSM in the DSM-III. This criterion originally came to be introduced following the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. In the DSM-IV both the general definition of mental disorder contained in the introduction and many of the individual diagnostic criteria sets required that symptoms cause (or at least increase the risk of) distress or impairment before a disorder could be diagnosed. In DSM-5 the requirement that disorders cause harm, or an increased risk of harm, has been dropped from the definition of mental disorder. This matters because many people have the “symptoms” of mental disorder but suffer no distress or impairment, and are not plausibly at an increased risk of suffering distress or impairment in the future. Under DSM-IV such people could not be diagnosed, now they may be. This chapter offers a philosophical history. I show how the conceptualisation of the link between harm and disorder has shifted through the different editions of the DSM, and make it clear why this matters.

AB - Are mental disorders harmful as a matter of definition, or are they simply conditions that quite often cause problems? Should someone who has “symptoms” but who suffers no harm be diagnosed with a mental disorder? In this chapter I shall show that these are crucial questions buthave not been given the attention they deserve. The idea that disorders are linked to “distress or impairment” was first explicitly introduced into the DSM in the DSM-III. This criterion originally came to be introduced following the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. In the DSM-IV both the general definition of mental disorder contained in the introduction and many of the individual diagnostic criteria sets required that symptoms cause (or at least increase the risk of) distress or impairment before a disorder could be diagnosed. In DSM-5 the requirement that disorders cause harm, or an increased risk of harm, has been dropped from the definition of mental disorder. This matters because many people have the “symptoms” of mental disorder but suffer no distress or impairment, and are not plausibly at an increased risk of suffering distress or impairment in the future. Under DSM-IV such people could not be diagnosed, now they may be. This chapter offers a philosophical history. I show how the conceptualisation of the link between harm and disorder has shifted through the different editions of the DSM, and make it clear why this matters.

KW - DSM - Harm - Definition of mental disorder - Distress and

U2 - 10.1007/978-94-017-9765-8_5

DO - 10.1007/978-94-017-9765-8_5

M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)

SN - 9789401797641

T3 - History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences

SP - 83

EP - 96

BT - The DSM-5 in perspective

A2 - Demazeux, Steeves

A2 - Singy, Patrick

PB - Springer

CY - Dordrecht

ER -