Contents

Disclaimer

Oxford University Press makes no representation, express or implied, that the drug dosages in this book are correct. Readers must therefore always check the product information and clinical procedures with the most up to date published product information and data sheets provided by the manufacturers and the most recent codes of conduct and safety regulations. The authors and the publishers do not accept responsibility or legal liability for any errors in the text or for the misuse or misapplication of material in this work. Except where otherwise stated, drug dosages and recommendations are for the non-pregnant adult who is not breastfeeding.

Show Summary Details
Page of

Recovery and the partitioning of scientific authority in psychiatry 

Recovery and the partitioning of scientific authority in psychiatry
Chapter:
Recovery and the partitioning of scientific authority in psychiatry
Author(s):

Douglas Porter

and Peter Zachar

DOI:
10.1093/med/9780199691319.003.0013
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD MEDICINE ONLINE (www.oxfordmedicine.com). © Oxford University Press, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Medicine Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 15 December 2019

This chapter explores the topic of scientific authority in psychiatry—focusing on both the validation of diagnostic constructs and their role in relation to recovery. The authors will argue that scientific authority is not superseded by the opinions of laypersons, but must also be tempered in the light of the experiences of patients, clients, or consumers. It will also be argued that the partitioning of authority should be a dynamic process. General guidelines that can be articulated for the development of diagnostic constructs cannot be simply generalized to complicated issues such as recovery. There are well-known value issues inherent in the concept of mental disorder, but in some cases these issues could be considered to be minimally evaluative. It is doubtful whether recovery-related concepts such as living as independently as possible and fulfillment could ever be construed as minimally evaluative. A scientific approach to recovery can still be beneficial, but recovery and the process of recovery cannot be regimented along scientific lines as readily as can diagnostic constructs.

Access to the complete content on Oxford Medicine Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.