精神病、精神疾患の概念に関する問題
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
It is believer that the concepts of mental illness, mental disease, and mental disorders, which represent the theoretical basis of psychiatry and psychiatric medicine, are more likely to bring about problems in use than the concepts of physical illness, physical disease, and physical disorders. In this paper, I will consider two such problems : (1)the concepts of mental illness, mental disease, and mental disorders often bring about more conflicts among experts regarding the diagnosis than that of physical illness, physical disease, and physical disorders ; and (2)there are more conflicts over whether some mental illness, mental disease, and mental disorders are illnesses or disease in a relevant sense as compared to physical illnesses, physical illnesses, physical disease, and physical disorders. Szasz, Boorse, and Fulford have all responded to the question of why these problems have com about. In this paper, I will critically examine their responses and then propose my own response to this question in the following manner. First, the concepts of mental illness, mental disease, and mental disorders bring about more conflicts among experts than that of physical illness, physical disease, and physical disorders because there is no consensus on whether the painters' condition damage their natural primary goods. According to Rawls, primary goods are "things that every rational man is presumed to want." Some primary goods such as health, vigor, intelligence, and imagination are natural goods ; although their possession is influenced by the basic structure of society, they are not directly under its control. Second, there is much debate about whether particular mental disorders, such as personality disorders, are illness or disease in a relevant sense as compared to physical disorders. This is because the evidence for biological deviations corresponding to mental disorders is often more lacking than that for physical disorders.
- 日本医学哲学・倫理学会の論文
- 2007-10-18