• Welcome! It’s great to see you. Our forum members are people, maybe like yourself, who experience mental health difficulties or who have had them at some point in their life.

    If you'd like to talk with people who know what it's like

Formally schizophrenia

firemonkey

firemonkey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
131
Location
Southend on sea
The February edition of the British Journal of Psychiatry has a thought-provoking editorial by psychiatrist Jim van Os, arguing that we should reject the diagnosis of schizophrenia owing to its lack of validity and replace it with a concept of a 'salience dysregulation syndrome'.

If you're not familiar with the use of the term salience, it is used widely in cognitive science to describe the attention grabbing quality of things and psychosis is widely thought to involve, at least in part, a problem with the regulation of salience so normally unremarkable things seem important or alarming.

Although this idea has been kicked around for many years, it was popularised in recent years by an influential article by psychiatrist Shitij Kapur called 'Psychosis as a state of aberrant salience', as differences in dopamine function are regularly found in studies on delusions and hallucinations.

Importantly, disturbance in dopamine-regulated salience does not seem specific to schizophrenia, but is common across all psychotic disorders.

Consequently, van Os reviews the scientific literature that has repeatedly found that the diagnosis of schizophrenia does not seem to be a cut-and-dry category and that psychosis appears in various forms to differing degrees throughout the population.

He particularly argues for the importance of explicitly naming the problem as a 'syndrome', as despite that fact that most people accept that it is not a single disorder, it can get treated as such simply out of habit:

First, although criticisms about the diagnostic construct of schizophrenia may be deflected with the argument that it is merely a syndrome (the association of several clinically recognisable features that often occur together for which a specific disorder may or may not be identified as the underlying cause), the problem is that its very name and the way mental health professionals use and communicate about the term results in medical reification and validation through professional behaviour rather than scientific data, exposing psychiatry to ridicule and hampering scientific progress. It may be argued, therefore, that if it is a syndrome, calling it as such may serve to remind professionals (and downstream of these, the rest of the world) of the relatively agnostic state of science in this regard.

Second, given the fact that maximum utility in terms of conveying clinical information may be obtained by combining categorical with dimensional representations of psychopathology, DSM–V and ICD–11 may be best served by creating separate categorical and dimensional axes of the psychopathology of psychotic disorders.
 

Attachments

Rambuie Perspecador

Rambuie Perspecador

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
338
Location
Nottingham
2 difficulties I have with this right away. Firstly I wonder from whose perspectives schizophrenia can be thought to have a lack of validity! It would be exceedingly cruel to people with Bi Polar diagnosis to have no distinction or blur the distinction made with their brand of psychosis and the nature in which schizophrenia presents - especially as the treatments available for the distinctive diagnoses are so at variance with each other! Great Indignation and contempt is elicited from the Bi Polar people when the atypicals are served upon them - and I would be equally disgusted with administrations of Lithium, for instance. We need to have some deference for the fact that Clinicans are trying to do a job here, that will continue to serve acutely ill people as best they can - and at least not to render them the disservice that is suggested here.

Secondly 'salience' serves judgment upon people who are themselves trying to make sense of it all, and to so judge people that whatever people express during their times of distress that it is dysregulated or inappropriate - whatever - is grossly insensitive and damaging to the spirit - as damaging as calling us deviants or 'abnormal' - whatever that is supposed to mean.

However I do respect the earnestness of the spirit in which this is raised and my short comment would be 'nice try'. :)
 
Libra1

Libra1

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
515
Location
West Midlands
Rambuie - a bit off topic, but are you a 'medic' in MHS ? :)
 
Rambuie Perspecador

Rambuie Perspecador

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
338
Location
Nottingham
No chance! I learn stuff the hard way - its quite usual for a 'patient' to want a cure more than a Clinician so a Patient throws his or her weight behind whatever will achieve that. Desperate times... :(
 
Top