Do Feeding and Eating Disorders Fit the General Definition of Mental Disorder?

Amoretti, Maria Cristina

doi:10.1007/s11245-020-09712-3

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, this situation is frequent in psychiatry and clinical psychology, where there is arguably less consensus on nosology in comparison to other branches of medicine. Rachel Cooper [ 39 ] and Miriam Solomon [ 40 ] observe that when a certain condition is included in the DSM , people who suffer from it are entitled to therapies and reimbursements (see also [ 41 ]). In general, philosophical theories of disease put important constraints on sickness judgements insofar as sickness judgements are taken either to coincide with disease judgements or to be contingent on one’s already having received a disease judgement.…”

Section: Preliminary Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The concept of disease in the time of COVID-19

Amoretti

Lalumera

2020

Theor Med Bioeth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Philosophers of medicine have formulated different accounts of the concept of disease. Which concept of disease one assumes has implications for what conditions count as diseases and, by extension, who may be regarded as having a disease (disease judgements) and for who may be accorded the social privileges and personal responsibilities associated with being sick (sickness judgements). In this article, we consider an ideal diagnostic test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection with respect to four groups of people—positive and asymptomatic; positive and symptomatic; negative; and untested—and show how different concepts of disease impact on the disease and sickness judgements for these groups. The suggestion is that sickness judgements and social measures akin to those experienced during the current COVID-19 outbreak presuppose a concept of disease containing social (risk of) harm as a component. We indicate the problems that arise when adopting this kind of disease concept beyond a state of emergency.

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The concept of disease in the time of COVID-19

Amoretti

Lalumera

2020

Theor Med Bioeth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have seen over time an expansion of diagnostic constructs and certainly an increased intensity in research output on these constructs, but this has not always led to increased clarity on causation or treatments (Boyle, 2002). In the case of ARFID, others adopt a similarly cautious position, suggesting that ARFID, like many other DSM constructs, have heterogeneous criteria and thus lack the specificity to unambiguously define a single condition (Amoretti, 2020). This has obvious ramifications for research and practice, but a fuller discussion of this is beyond the remit of this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reflective evaluation of a feeding clinic intervention—Parents as a reflecting team

Moynihan

Illsley

2022

Brit J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This feeding clinic engaged parents as active participants in a group intervention. Parents' participated behind a two‐way mirror. This novel approach to practice in this domain largely evolved from an integration of theory, service user feedback, service development and the local context. This review sought to understand how parents experienced being part of a reflecting team in this way. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were completed and analysed using thematic analysis. The researchers took a critical realist approach to the research, data analysis and report writing. Findings Parents talked about benefiting from perspective taking that enabled them to see the child in context, which in part supported novel understandings of their child's feeding and their relationship to it. Three themes were identified: “Connection and Distance” explored parents' experience of being behind the screen in terms of the dialectic potential that was created by being simultaneously close to and distanced from their children and the other parents. “Playing with Techniques” describes the way parents valued learning in the group through discussion and working on techniques between sessions. In particular, they moved from looking for techniques to thinking about how and when to use “techniques” that is, second‐order change. “Unexpected Gains” describes how parents came to new and unexpected insights about their understanding of their children, the presenting issues and their relationships to these issues. Conclusion Parents' experiences suggest that there is merit in engaging parents in a reflecting team in a feeding clinic. This way of working with parents supports their engagement in change and positions them as active agents of this change. Parents taking up this position has the advantage of moving from passive consumers of health care to active and critical collaborators.

show abstract

“…To take another example, other mental disorders, such as Feeding disorders, might also be considered as research entities, rather than independent nosological categories(Amoretti, 2020).26 It should be noted that this hypothesis is by no means incompatible with the above interpretation of SPCD as a cluster of symptoms.27 We introduced this point in Sect. 4.1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The DSM-5 introduction of the Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder as a new mental disorder: a philosophical review

Amoretti

Lalumera

Serpico

2021

HPLS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) included the Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder (SPCD) as a new mental disorder characterized by deficits in pragmatic abilities. Although the introduction of SPCD in the psychiatry nosography depended on a variety of reasons—including bridging a nosological gap in the macro-category of Communication Disorders—in the last few years researchers have identified major issues in such revision. For instance, the symptomatology of SPCD is notably close to that of (some forms of) Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). This opens up the possibility that individuals with very similar symptoms can be diagnosed differently (with either ASD or SPCD) and receive different clinical treatments and social support. The aim of this paper is to review recent debates on SPCD, particularly as regards its independence from ASD. In the first part, we outline the major aspects of the DSM-5 nosological revision involving ASD and SPCD. In the second part, we focus on the validity and reliability of SPCD. First, we analyze literature on three potential validators of SPCD, i.e., etiology, response to treatment, and measurability. Then, we turn to reliability issues connected with the introduction of the grandfather clause and the use of the concepts of spectrum and threshold in the definition of ASD. In the conclusion, we evaluate whether SPCD could play any role in contemporary psychiatry other than that of an independent mental disorder and discuss the role that non-epistemic factors could play in the delineation of the future psychiatry nosography.

show abstract

Do Feeding and Eating Disorders Fit the General Definition of Mental Disorder?

Cited by 3 publications

References 51 publications

The concept of disease in the time of COVID-19

The concept of disease in the time of COVID-19

A reflective evaluation of a feeding clinic intervention—Parents as a reflecting team

The DSM-5 introduction of the Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder as a new mental disorder: a philosophical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About