Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders

 

 

The DSM-5 is a diagnostic tool. It has evolved over the decades, as have the classifications and criteria within its pages. It is used not just for diagnosis, however, but also for billing, access to services, and legal cases. Not all practitioners are in agreement with the content and structure of the DSM-5, and dissociative disorders are one such area. These disorders can be difficult to distinguish and diagnose. There is also controversy in the field over the legitimacy of certain dissociative disorders, such as dissociative identity disorder, which was formerly called multiple personality disorder.
In this Assignment, you will examine the controversy surrounding dissociative disorders. You will also explore clinical, ethical, and legal considerations pertinent to working with patients with these disorders.

Photo Credit: Getty Images/Wavebreak Media
To Prepare
• Review this week’s Learning Resources on dissociative disorders.
• Use the Walden Library to investigate the controversy regarding dissociative disorders. Locate at least three scholarly articles that you can use to support your Assignment.
The Assignment (2–3 pages)
• Explain the controversy that surrounds dissociative disorders.
• Explain your professional beliefs about dissociative disorders, supporting your rationale with at least three scholarly references from the literature.
• Explain strategies for maintaining the therapeutic relationship with a client that may present with a dissociative disorder.
• Finally, explain ethical and legal considerations related to dissociative disorders that you need to bring to your practice and why they are important.

 

Sample Solution

Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), as a diagnosis, is controversial. People sometimes ask, is DID real? While many healthcare professionals believe it to be genuine, to the point where it is listed in DSM-5, other professionals feel it doesn’t exist and should be removed from the DSM-5. Is DID diagnosis valid? The basis of this DID controversy is that first-person reports of dissociation based on existing diagnostic scales are invalid due to the crafting of said scales. It is argued that the way these scales are designed, increase positives. In 2004, Piper and Merskey did an extensive literature review and in spite of some sources saying that up to 99% of people with DID report childhood abuse, they found no proof that DID results from childhood trauma.

The use of the death penalty is embedded throughout history, but what is its place in our modern society? Despite the development of more liberal ideas, capital punishment, which is a direct violation of human rights, is still a feature of many justice systems around the world today.

After completing volunteer work for a public pressure group, named Amicus, providing representation for American citizens on death row, I was exposed to the severity of this issue. The death penalty deprives people of the most basic human right; the right to life. Therefore, it is not a question of whether or not we should defend the right to life but rather how we should defend it. Thus, I have decided to research the question; ‘Is it more effective to defend the right to life through the law or through public pressure groups?’

Amicus only works with prisoners on death row in the United States and so I have decided to concentrate the focus of this research question in that region. Therefore, I will be concentrating on American legislation when dealing with the issue of the law in comparison to public pressure groups.

When approaching this question, we must clarify the meaning of ‘public pressure groups.’ A widely accepted definition is ‘an organised group that does not put up candidates for election, but seeks to influence government policy or legislation.’ However, this definition does not specify exactly how the pressure groups persuade the government. This minor detail can determine whether a pressure group is successful or not. Some pressure groups believe that in order to achieve their goal, they must organise violent protests and rallies. Others take a more peaceful approach, such as writing letters to members of parliament or running non-violent campaigns. Amicus is best described as the latter, as they use the law itself to f

This question has been answered.

Get Answer