Labeling Individuals, Nurses Prescribing Needed Medications For Psychiatric Patients, And The Argument On The Insanity Plea

Diagnosing an individual with a mental illness balances on a fine line between giving a life-long label and misdiagnosing. Mental illness is best viewed on a continuum, allowing for a varying degree of severity. In the field, mental health professionals are faced with determining what signifies the appropriateness of diagnosing a mental illness. A professional’s judgment is impacted by their personal perceptions and observations, societies views and norms, and the patient’s history. The film, “How Mad Are You? A Search for Insanity” demonstrates the difficulties in distinguishing those who are mentally ill from those seen as healthy ( ). I will explore my reactions and thoughts regarding the participants’ experience as well as the mental

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

Entering the taboo world of mental illness, stigmatized as the crazy and psychotic by decades of

The diagnostic label is the most positive outcome of the Rosenhan’s study because it advanced treatment patients and helped to eliminate the stigma surrounding mental health. Labels started being handled more carefully so that a patient is not just seen as their diagnosis, the patients can receive better care with an unbiased opinion toward their actions and past. The psychiatric diagnostic label also became apart of Dr. O.F. Wahl’s research about the effect of the stigma surrounding mental health. This research showed the detrimental results of stigma “urged public education as a means of reducing stigma.” (Hock,

Thomas J. Scheff has written an interesting theory about labeling a mental illness in his book “Labeling Madness. This book challenged the reliance of misleading labels such as “schizophrenia” and the harmful isolation of many people. This theory was accepted by many sociologists but had very little impact even to those in public. Thomas Scheff sought to challenge how the medical model with what is called a mental illness to something more of a social model.

According to Ronson and Rosenhan, there is a question of whether sane individuals can be distinguished from insane individuals. They suggest that psychotherapists are too quick to label someone with a psychiatric disorder and in numerous cases they miss the mark. An inaccurate diagnosis of a mental disorder may cause a person to receive treatment they do not need, and possibly not receive the treatment that they do need. This causes countless problems for the patient, including difficulty acquiring a job, legal, personal, and social stigmas. Worse yet, Rosenhan (1973) said, “Having once been labeled schizophrenic there is nothing the pseudopatient [patient] can do to overcome the tag”.

There is an age-old debate about the consequences of diagnosing an individual. Those who oppose diagnosis express the concerns associated with labeling an individual, only creating stigma for themselves and from society. Those who agree with diagnosing a patient claim that information regarding mental health can give the individual peace of mind and progress towards a treatment. Despite the stigma around diagnosing, there are far greater benefits for the patient. A diagnosis gives the individual the opportunity to understand themselves and go forward with treatment options.

Any human consideration regarding a mental or physical state lies in a relational context, as measured against a normative criterion established by a majority or the powerful. Considering the value of mental illness or instability in a vacuum, it is arguably impossible to remove any evaluation from the context in which it is situated. Thus to identify mental instability is to comparatively grade it against a series of premises that uphold a system of normative mental health. Foucault and Laing, for example, examine the concept of insanity as being something deviant, and that which transgresses ethical norms in relation to human behaviour and cognitions of reality. In a sense, mental illness is bound up with the oft-examined concept of ‘othering’,

Permanent internalization of these messages leaves adults believing that they are stupid, lazy, and underachievers. Adults with painful memories of stigma and negative labeling throughout childhood find that their lives have manifested into that of suffering, misery, a chronic sense of underachievement and frustration (Mather, 2012). The belief that psychiatric labels cause stigma is cause for concern because seeking a diagnosis is the first step towards validation, treatment access and relief (Ohan et al., 2013). There are several treatment options that will be evaluated later in this project to improve the lives of adults who have been stigmatized however, change needs to begin with the medical professionals, educators and families.

The labelling model in the context of mental illness is concerned with the power of some groups in society to label other less powerful groups in a negative way, and label them negatively accordingly. Szasz and Scheff argue that mental illness is a socially constructed concept which is used to explain strange behaviour. To test this, Rosenhan asked 8 perfectly normal researchers to get admitted into psychiatric hospitals, and once they were admitted, they behaved perfectly normally, but remained treated as if they were mentally ill. This demonstrates the difficulties which people face in attempting to get rid of a label once it has been given by others in society.

1) Labeling psychological disorders has specific benefits. Once a label is given, it allows professionals to talk about their cases that they have observed. Having that communication makes it easier to understand possible causes of psychological disorders. Once a psychological disorder is better understood, effective treatment can be established. Although these benefits are seen to help patients, there can be possible dangers or detriments to being given a label of mental health issues. Labels and symbols can help society better communicate and understand each other. But these labels can lead to stigmas and harmful stereotypes. These labels can create bias of perception, and can change how people behave with one another. If the first thing

Labelling can occur by diagnosis of an illness or disability from a medical professional, to avoid labels The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used. The DSM contains the symptoms of mental illness in order to ensure the correct diagnosis. Labels can also be applied to individuals that are considered different from others in the community by behaviour or personal qualities. To avoid this in psychological scientific writing The American Psychological Association (APA) have guidelines to reduce labelling and language bias. Words must be carefully chosen when referring to a person or persons that they are accurate, clear, specific and un-biased. We must be sensitive to labels and avoid labelling individuals, a possible solution is to put “person with …” It is important to acknowledge participation therefore descriptive terms such as; students or respondents are used and also give accurate information. (APA, 2011).

Ignorance plays a major part when stigmatizing and forming a prejudice again people with mental illness. Not all individuals who suffer from mental illness are dangerous and unpredictable. Human service professional can treat and counsels those who do suffer from an aggressive and defiant behavior. Labels have been placed on the mentally challenge for years and continue today. The books states, “Viewing mental illness through the lens of biology can also contribute to the tendency to pathologies the mentally ill where individuals are seen as “sick” and “broken.” Many people feel like the only way to cure someone with a mental illness is by medication. However, licensed human service professional can provide psychotherapy to help with

The question this article rises is how do we distinguish between someone who has a true mental illness or defect and someone who is just simply odd. The article also calls into question what gives others or psychologist the right to classify someone as abnormal or insane and where should the line between odd, abnormal behavior, and insanity be drawn. Rosenhan also discusses in the article the idea of labeling theory. He discusses how mindful psychologist must be when they decide that in fact yes, this person does have a mental defect and fits and fits criteria to be diagnosed. This is because being diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder can be just as damming as it is effective. Yes, if someone is

Another issue brought up by Rosenhan’s study is the danger of diagnostically labeling patients. In this experiment, nurses and doctors would blatantly ignore the patients when prompted with reasonable questions, seeing them as their mental health illness, not as people. All individuality was stripped away. Once a patient is diagnosed, “all behavior and personality characteristics are seen as stemming from the labeled disorder.” Every action is seen as a result of his or her illness, risking the patient’s progress.