*Psychiatric Labels Impact
Chapter 16 - Psychological Disorders
Critical Issues in Diagnostic Labelling
Impact of Psychiatric Labels:
Psychiatric labels significantly affect social perceptions, self-concept, and legal outcomes.
Once a diagnostic label is assigned to an individual, it tends to be perceived as a descriptor of the person rather than their behavior.
This perception can distort objectivity, whereby others start forming expectations based on the psychiatric label.
Example:
A neighbor who is labeled as a "sexual psychopath" is likely to be treated differently by the community, regardless of the accuracy of the label.
Self-Perception Influence:
Labels can heavily influence self-perception, causing individuals to internalize societal expectations or stigma associated with the label.
Research Foundations
Study Reference:
"On Being Sane in Insane Places" - Rosenhan (1973)
Design Summary:
Question: Will ordinary people be admitted to a mental institution if they simply demonstrate psychiatric symptoms?
Type: Participant observation.
Variables:
Variable X: Whether the pseudopatient was admitted and for how long.
Variable Y: Presenting symptom (hearing "hollow," "empty," "thud").
Legal Consequences of Diagnostic Labelling
Competency and Involuntary Commitment:
Refers to legal standing regarding a defendant's mental condition during a hearing, not regarding the crime itself.
If a person is deemed "not competent to stand trial," they may be institutionalized until they are deemed fit to proceed with the trial.
The focuses here include understanding the trial process and assisting the defendant's legal defense.
Insanity:
Insanity considers a defendant's mental state at the time of the crime.
It is utilized when a person is judged to be unable to understand the wrongfulness of their actions or control their behavior during the commission of a crime.
In Canada, the term used is NCRMD (Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder).
Shifted Burden of Proof:
The prosecution is required to prove that the defendant was sane at the time of the crime (as established in Clark v. Arizona, 2006).
Some regions may also apply a verdict of "guilty but mentally ill."
Goal:
Strive for a balance between accountability for crimes and the acknowledgment of mental impairment affecting a defendant's behavior.