Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

The DSM-5-TR 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-TR, 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.

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 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

In 1988, Dell surveyed clinicians to assess the reactions they had encountered from others as a result of their interest in dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously called multiple personality disorder. Of 62 respondents who had treated patients with DID, more than 80 percent said they had experienced “moderate to extreme” reactions from colleagues. Dell speculated that the emotional reactions to the diagnosis of DID stemmed from anxiety evoked by the disorder’s “bizarre, unsettling clinical presentation” Dell 1988. Another reason for the heated controversy surrounding the diagnosis of DID is the dispute over the meaning of observed symptoms: is DID a disorder with a unique and subtle set of core symptoms and behaviors that some clinicians do not see when it is before their eyes? Or is it willful malingering and/or iatrogenically caused symptoms created by the other clinicians who think something is there that is not? (McHugh 2009).

ith a hypothesis, alongside pioneers today including Frowe (2011). Their hypothesis is formulated as an aide, regardless of whether we ought to do battle alongside conditions which should be thought of, how would it be a good idea for us we respond and not do during a conflict on the off chance that it is unavoidable, lastly what further move ought to be initiated later. To assess this hypothesis, one should take a gander at the presumptions made towards it, for instance, entertainers which scholars forget about and the delay between customary scholars and innovators. In particular, there can be no conclusive hypothesis of the simply war, on the grounds that everyone has an alternate understanding of this hypothesis, given its normativity. Nonetheless, the hypothesis gives an unpleasant showcase of how we ought to continue in the midst of strain and struggle, essentially the point of a simply war: ‘harmony and security of the province’ (Begby et al, 2006b, Page 310). In general, this hypothesis is reasonable to utilize yet can’t at any point be viewed as a characteristic aide since it’s normatively speculated. To respond to the inquiry, the exposition is involved 3 areas.

Jus promotion bellum
The beginning segment covers jus promotion bellum, the circumstances discussing whether an activity is legitimately OK to cause a conflict (Frowe (2011), Page 50). Vittola, right off the bat, examines one of the noble motivations of war, in particular, is when damage is caused yet he causes notice the damage doesn’t prompt conflict, it relies upon the degree or proportionality, one more condition to jus promotion bellum (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314). Frowe, nonetheless, contends the possibility of “admirable motivation” in view of “Sway” which alludes to the security of political and regional privileges, alongside basic freedoms. In contemporary view, this view is more confounded to reply, given the ascent of globalization. Additionally, it is challenging to quantify proportionality, especially in war, on the grounds that not just that there is an epistemic issue

This question has been answered.

Get Answer