Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

On the Szaszian argument.

S L Dilts

    The Journal of Psychiatry & Law
    |August 3, 2004
    PubMed
    Summary

    The Szaszian argument critiques psychiatry, but this analysis argues involuntary treatment ethics depend on subjective competency, not objective brain pathology. This challenges the naturalistic fallacy in mental illness discourse.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Self-disclosure and the treatment of substance abuse.

    Journal of substance abuse treatment·1997
    Same author

    Assessing liver function before initiating disulfiram therapy.

    The American journal of psychiatry·1996
    Same author

    Physicians with substance abuse problems and their recovery environment: a survey.

    Journal of substance abuse treatment·1994
    Same author

    Incidence of alcohol abuse in the parents of medical students.

    Journal of American college health : J of ACH·1993
    Same author

    Alcohol use by physicians.

    Colorado medicine·1990
    Same author

    Establishment of the Colorado Physician Health Program with a legislative initiative.

    JAMA·1988

    Area of Science:

    • Philosophy of Psychiatry
    • Bioethics
    • Philosophy of Mind

    Background:

    • The Szaszian argument posits psychiatry is rhetorical, justifying involuntary treatment.
    • It distinguishes between treatment for brain lesions (just) and
    • mental illness
    • (unjust due to lack of histopathology).

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To argue that the presence or absence of objective histopathology is irrelevant to the morality of involuntary psychiatric treatment.
    • To analyze the philosophical underpinnings of the Szaszian argument, particularly its potential subscription to a naturalistic fallacy.

    Main Methods:

    • Philosophical argumentation and conceptual analysis.
    • Critique of the Szaszian distinction between physical illness and
    • mental illness
    • in the context of involuntary treatment ethics.
    • Examination of the role of subjective determination (competency/dangerousness) in psychiatric practice.

    Main Results:

    • The distinction between demonstrable brain lesions and
    • mental illness
    • based on histopathology does not alter the ethical considerations of involuntary treatment.
    • Involuntary treatment inherently relies on subjective assessments of competency or dangerousness, irrespective of objective pathology.
    • The Szaszian argument may commit a naturalistic fallacy, leading to philosophical inconsistencies.

    Conclusions:

    • The ethical justification for involuntary psychiatric treatment hinges on subjective determinations of competency and dangerousness, not on the presence or absence of objective histopathology.
    • The Szaszian argument's reliance on histopathology as a criterion for just involuntary treatment is philosophically flawed.
    • Re-evaluating the basis of involuntary treatment requires moving beyond a strict reliance on objective biological markers to address the complexities of mental state and capacity.
    Keywords:
    Mental Health TherapiesPhilosophical Approach

    Related Experiment Videos