Establishing Normative Validity for Scientific Psychiatric Nosology: The Significance of Integrating Patient Perspectives
Psychiatric nosology entails a complex combination of descriptive and prescriptive elements. While there has been a great emphasis upon developing empirical evidence to guide the further development of nosology, scant attention has been given to normative questions of what nosology ought to accomplish. A largely neo-Kraepelinian view of nosology has guided the DSM-5 revision process. The normative suppositions of the neo-Kraepelinian view remain largely implicit but, when made explicit, it becomes clear that they are contestable and lack proper justification. This chapter invokes the neo-Kantian philosophical work of Jurgen Habermas in order to address the normative issues at stake in nosology. Habermas establishes a procedural notion of normative validity that would safeguard normative issues in nosology from being resolved in an arbitrary or coercive manner. This procedural notion of normative validity clarifies the significance of integrating the perspectives of patients in order to determine what nosology should accomplish. The fact that normative issues form an essential part of nosology means that we should remain skeptical toward any claims for the validity of the science that ignore the normative dimension of the science while attending solely to empirical issues.
KeywordsNormative Issue Illness Experience Normative Question Institutional Norm Normative Validity
- 7.Murphy D. Philosophy of psychiatry. In: Zalta EN, editor. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy fall 2010 edition. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/psychiatry/.
- 10.Jaspers K. General psychopathology [J. Hoenig and M.W. Hamilton, trans.]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1963.Google Scholar
- 11.Ghaemi SN. Nosologomania: DSM & Karl Jaspers’ critique of Kraepelin. Philoso Ethics Humanit Med. 2009;4(10). doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-4-10.
- 14.Lewis B. The biopsychosocial model and philosophic pragmatism: is George Engel a pragmatist? Philos Psychiatr Psychol. 2007;14(4):299–310.Google Scholar
- 17.Schaffner KF. Clinical and etiological psychiatric diagnoses: do causes count? In: Kendler JZ, editor. Descriptions & prescriptions: values, mental disorders, and the DSMs. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2002. p. 271–90.Google Scholar
- 20.Schwartz MA, Wiggins OP. The hegemony of the DSMs. In: Kendler JZ, editor. Descriptions & prescriptions: values, mental disorders, and the DSMs. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2002. p. 199–209.Google Scholar
- 22.Baynes K. The normative grounds of social criticism: Kant, Rawls, and Habermas. Albany: State University of New York Press; 2002.Google Scholar
- 23.Kant I. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals [M. Gregor trans. and ed.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
- 24.Habermas J. Moral consciousness and communicative action [C. Lenhardt and S.W. Nicholsen trans.]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1990.Google Scholar
- 25.Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971.Google Scholar
- 26.Longino H. Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in social inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
- 27.Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.Google Scholar
- 28.Beauchamp TL, McCullough LB. Medical ethics: the moral responsibilities of physicians. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1984.Google Scholar
- 29.Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. A philosophical basis of medical practice: toward a philosophy and ethic of the healing professions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1981.Google Scholar
- 30.Habermas J. Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy [W. Rehg trans.]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 33.Habermas J. The inclusion of the other: studies in political theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1998.Google Scholar