z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Crisis in Psychiatric Diagnosis? Epistemological Humility in the DSM Era
Author(s) -
Warren Kinghorn
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
the journal of medicine and philosophy a forum for bioethics and philosophy of medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.328
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 1744-5019
pISSN - 0360-5310
DOI - 10.1093/jmp/jhaa026
Subject(s) - humility , politics , face (sociological concept) , dsm 5 , psychology , epistemology , psychiatry , sociology , political science , law , philosophy , social science
The modern editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), beginning with DSM-III in 1980, emerged in response to notable challenges to psychiatry’s practices and ways of knowing in the early 1970s. Because these challenges threatened psychiatry’s scientific self-understanding and moral authority, they exemplify what Alasdair MacIntyre has termed “epistemological crisis.” As a response to crisis, the modern DSM has been a stunning political achievement, providing the central diagnostic constructs around which psychiatric research, practice, and reimbursement has been organized for four decades. Indeed, the DSM’s authority survives in the face of ongoing trenchant scientific and philosophical critique. But if psychiatry is to be healthy, it must be epistemologically humble, reckoning honestly with the limits of the DSM before a future epistemological crisis destabilizes it entirely.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom