PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS AS A POLITICAL DEVICE

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

A Critical Analysis of the study, Psychiatric Diagnosis as a political device

1. Rationale of the Study

Psychiatric Diagnosis is often generalized in the sense that it is the same to

other diagnostics in medicine. In this study, two researchers Jeff Coulter and David
Ingelby are noted with their different views on Psychiatric Diagnosis. Ingelby pointed
out that it was the apparent medical nature of the process that enabled it to act as
a justification for the actions that followed whilst Coulter examined the process of
identification of mental disturbance and suggested that it was quite different from
the process of identifying a physical disease, as it was dependent on social norms
and circumstances. Psychiatric Diagnosis is the act of identifying a mental illness,
disease or sickness it is also a mental or behavioral pattern that causes either
suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life. Specific conditions that are
excluded include social norms signs and symptoms depend on the specific disorder,
causes these disorders are often unclear and theories may incorporate findings from
a range of fields. Mental disorders are usually defined by a combination of how a
person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular
regions or functions of the brain, often in a social context.
Several case studies were considered to show the significance of Psychiatric
diagnosis as a political device. Notable among these cases are those of Bill and
Tanya which Moncrieff presented in this paper. In these cases we can determine the
role played by psychiatric diagnosis in guiding the state whether to continue giving
aid to the patient concerned. Services are based in psychiatric hospitals or in the
community, and assessments are carried out by psychiatrists, clinical psychologists
and clinical social workers, using various methods but often relying on observation
and questioning. Treatments are provided by various mental health professionals.
This particular study should focus on proving the generalization that
Psychiatric Diagnosis has been a device for political means and will not continue to
fund for patients whose illnesses are not curable. Hence, will attempt to discover
new possible treatments with illnesses that already have a drug for cure.

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

Several case studies were considered to show the significance of Psychiatric

diagnosis as a political device. However Moncrieff presented and focused more on
the cases of two people: Bill and Tanya, who both maintained their anonymity and
suffer from severe psychiatric diseases. In the case of Bill who represents the
reluctance of other institutions for extremely unique cases and Tanya who exhibits
the rarer sides of typical disorders like schizophrenia. As readers of this journal, we
can determine the role played by psychiatric diagnosis in guiding the state whether
to continue giving aid to the patient concerned.

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. Data and Analysis

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

Bentall, R.P. (1990) Reconstructing Schizophrenia. London: Routledge.

Conrad, P. (2009) Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology 18:
209232.
Coulter, J. (1979) The Social Construction of Mind. London: Macmillan.
Foucault, M. (1965) Madness and Civilisation. London: Tavistock.
Healy, D. (2004) Shaping the intimate: Influences on the experience of everyday
nerves. Social
Studies Science 34(2): 219245.
Healy, D. (2006) The latest mania: Selling bipolar disorder. PLoS Medicine 3(4):
e185.
Ingelby, D. (1982) The social construction of mental illness. In: P. Wright and A.
Treacher (eds.) The Problem of Medical Knowledge. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh
University Press, pp. 123143.
Rose, N. (2004) Becoming neurochemical selves. In: N. Stehr (ed.) Biotechnology,
Commerce and Civil Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 89128.
Rosenhan, D.L. (1973) On being sane in insane places. Science 179(70): 250258.
Szasz, T. (1994) Cruel Compassion. Psychiatric Control of Societys Unwanted. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.