Co-Folding Disorders: A Case Study

Humans who are being over diagnosed with disorders, causes the spending of too much money on drugs and medication that could be harmful and is not needed for them to take. The objective of this book is to let people become aware of what is going on around the world. The audience that this book aims towards is the public. The main objective of Dr. Frances is to alert the public, health care professionals and clinicians about the misinformed diagnosis of people and the misdirected treatment and medications that are prescribed to people who are “normal.” Everyday pains and suffering are being diagnosed as mental illnesses and disorders. Psychiatry has specified people with false labels. The first of many arguments is that people are very worried that when a new disorder is brought up, that they have this disorder or illness. Another argument in this book is the misdiagnosis between mental disorder and normality. Many people who experience completely normal grief could be mislabeled as having a psychiatric problem. The next argument is to separate the people who have diseases from normality. Allen Frances blames the internet and social networking for the over diagnosis of mental disorder. This book is also about the high percentage of people who are now diagnosed with a mental illness,

They also each place little emphasis on diagnosis within the medical model. Within narrative therapy, Michael White argues that diagnoses are “totalizing techniques” that actually maintain rather than solve the problems of living (Carr, 1998, p. 486). When looking at family systems and The Family Crucible the client is the family, not the individual, so a medical diagnosis would not make sense.

Many doctors and school officials believe that the diagnosis and labeling of these individuals is helpful so that they can be assisted with their struggles. The idea is that if a disorder goes undiagnosed it must go untreated

Another factor that contributes to inadequate information is the client’s willingness to share aspects of themselves or their lives. With this in mind, developing a therapeutic relationship based on mutuality, empathy, trust, empowerment and respect is crucial, so the client is empowered to define themselves, their lives and their goals (Murphy & Dillon, 2015; Camargo, n.d.).

Kroska, A. Harkness, S.K. (2008). Exploring the role of diagnosis in the modified labeling theory of mental illness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71, 193-208

Being able to form a diagnosis properly for a client is a process that is wide-ranging and broad. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) supports recommendations and standards for identifying a diagnosis for a client. The procedure of diagnosing is more than skimming for symptoms in the DSM; one must assess, interview and identify issues, as well as refer to the DSM for a diagnosis.

Misdiagnosis is an incorrect diagnosis of an illness or other problem. In the article “Why I Wrote ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’,” Charlotte Perkins Gilman suffered of postpartum depression after having her beautiful baby girl and as a result of this, she was placed on rest treatment. Her doctors attempted to shut off her access to everything they believed could worsen her condition. Isolation while in a depressed state of mind can be more dangerous . In the article “Why I Wrote ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ ,” Charlotte Gilman explains how isolation from people and activities did not help her with depression.

Dual diagnosis will almost consist of three prevalent characteristics such as substance abuse, several metal illnesses and proper treatment (Drake, 2007). In addition, dual diagnosis also allows clients and doctors to discover further new knowledge specifically of dual diagnosis such as the most exposed to different individuals who are dual diagnosed the better treatment the doctor can provide (Werner & Stawski, 2012). Furthermore the more knowledgeable the doctors are at treating individuals whom are dual diagnosed the better they are to provide their clients with the eight to nine stages (depending on the individual) of change (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). However, with all of this new knowledge, there are issues that pertain to dual diagnosis, which is that having a typecast on the individuals will cause the doctor to provide worse treatment as if they didn’t have an opinion of those clients (Werner, 2012). In addition, there must be work done on treating children who are dual diagnosed since many doctors don’t even know that children can be dual diagnosed and treated just like adults (Jamie & Knowlton, 2007). Therefore, in the spectrum of dual diagnosis, there are endless amount of information to help us to become more knowledgeable but it is not until we are attaining firsthand experience that we can fully be able to help in dual

On 02/27/2016, I worked in dual diagnosis and had the opportunity to communicate with one of the patients. Her primary diagnosis is Major depression disorder and severe alcohol use disorder. During the initial phase, I introduced myself and told her that I would like to communicate with her. She was cooperative and made fair eye contact during our communication. I used nonverbal technique such as silence to give her enough time to think through a point. In addition, I leaned forward, and used active listening observe the patient’s nonverbal behaviors, understand and reflect on the patient’s verbal message, and to detect things the patient said that may need more clarification( Halter, 2014, p. 152). Furthermore, I used restating technique

I was and continue to be socialized to be mentally ill, or neuroatypical. Being neuroatypical is a trait that is both ascribed and achieved. Some aspects of mental illness are chemical or environmentally triggered, so my OCD and mood disorder are both directly a part of my biology. Similarly, my anxiety it is thought to be genetic and my PTSD is obviously caused by trauma. These things seem concrete and ingrained enough in my being that I can call mental illness ascribed, but at the same time, there are aspects which seem to render them achieved. The diagnoses themselves are assigned by various doctors. However, these diagnoses are clearly constructs, because the diagnostic criteria and language have evolved over time, and I personally have had several damaging misdiagnoses over the course of my life (the treatment for which exacerbated my other conditions). Often, diagnoses are based on the patient 's compliance or identity (such as race, class, and gender), and highly stigmatized diagnoses can be given out by doctors who display strong biases or are more willing to want to abuse a patient in psychiatric setting. Recently, five doctors disagreed about a specific diagnosis for me, though there was a general consensus among four of them that it was some form of bipolar disorder. The fifth saw me when I was in an abrasive and highly anxious part of my manic episode, which made him treat me more poorly and give a diagnosis that all of my other healthcare providers disagreed

This problem have improved but it is still a problem caused by the DSM. DSM-IV TR also does not consider patients subjective experience of a disorder. That is, the approach is not a dimensional approach as there is no first-person report but rather, observations are usually carried out which may neglect the more somatic and psychological processes that underlie the symptoms (Flanagan, Davidson & Strauss, 2007).3 Also, DSM causes most clinicians to be primarily concerned with the signs and symptoms of a disorder rather than the underlying cause by giving a list of certain criteria for diagnosis.

According to Erford (2010) defines diagnosis as a framework used to identify problems or the focus of intervention. Mental health settings typically use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition- Text Revision (DSM-IV- TR) (American Psychiatric Association, 2001). Diagnosis is the recognition of a problem that becomes the objective and goals of the counseling intervention it is also the detection of a disease, disorder, or syndrome based on some form of systematic assessment. “The problems associated with diagnosis include identifying clients by their diagnosis as opposed to focusing on their unique situations and experiences” (Erford, 2010 p.285). Understanding the implication of a diagnosis on the client and the counseling relationship is something that all professional counselors need to consider. To develop a treatment plan counselors uses the DSM- IV- TR which includes a five axial system that comprises of clinical disorders and other factors that are the focus of treatment, long-standing socio-emotional problems, medical conditions, environmental stressors, level of symptom distress, and functional impairment. This five axial system is intended to provide a comprehensive diagnostic picture. Professional counselors need to be diligent regarding the use of diagnosis. It is an ethical requirement that counselors providing diagnostic formulations be adequately trained in the use of DSM- IV- TR and that

While mental health professionals have had mixed feelings about the use of diagnostic labels in counseling, the diagnosis is another common outcome of the assessment process. Mears (2010) reports the advantage of diagnostic classifications as their usefulness in written and verbal interactions about the specific problems a client might experience. An example of this is when a diagnosis documented in a case conceptualization or treatment plan increases the ease of communication between clinicians or billing agencies.

The problem with the stigma of a psychological disorder is the understanding that the client or patient understands how society views those who have psychological

Diagnosis: Knowing the futility of treating the symptoms, a clinician begins with a list of observable symptoms and uses cause and effect to seek out the underlying common cause for all of them, the “disease” or core problem.