Posts Tagged ‘ DSM ’

“Psy-ences” colloquium (Montréal, April 2016)

POSTER PSY-ENCES (CIRST)

PSY-ENCES

Perspectives historiques et philosophiques sur la classification dans les disciplines « psy »

Historical and philosophical perspectives on classification in the “psy” disciplines

Quelle place occupent les dispositifs de classification dans le champ des sciences psy? En réunissant des chercheurs de disciplines diverses, cette journée d’étude bilingue visera à apporter des analyses novatrices afin de cerner le rôle controversé qu’occupent ces procédés nosologiques dans les pratiques scientifiques ainsi que dans les représentations et discours contemporains.

Colloque organisé par Alexandra BACOPOULOS-VIAU et Vincent GUILLIN

Conférencier invité (Keynote) : Edward SHORTER (University of Toronto)

PROGRAMME

KEYNOTE – Edward Shorter (Toronto): “The History of the Classification of Affective Disorders”

Scott Phelps (McGill) – “Seeing Ourselves, Darkly: The Awareness of Illness and Illness of Awareness”

Vincent Guillin (UQAM) – “Ethology ‘à la française’: the Intriguing Reception of J. S. Mill’s Science of Character among French fin de siècle psychologists”

Kathryn Tabb (Columbia) – “From ‘Personalized’ to ‘Precision’ Psychiatry: What’s in a Name?”

Alexandra Bacopoulos-Viau (McGill) – “The Re-Discovery of the Unconscious: Pierre Janet, Self and Trauma from 1900 to the Present”

Luc Faucher (UQAM) – “A ROAMER with a View”

Stephanie Lloyd (Laval) – Commentaires de clôture et discussion générale

QUAND : 22 avril 2016

OÙ : Université du Québec à Montréal
Pavillon Thérèse-Casgrain
455, boul. René-Lévesque Est, H2L 4Y2
Salle W-5215

INSCRIPTION OBLIGATOIRE avant le 15 avril : cirst@uqam.ca

INFORMATION : 

Français : http://www.cirst.uqam.ca/fr-ca/activit%C3%A9s/colloquepsyences.aspx

English: http://www.cirst.uqam.ca/en-us/activities/colloquiumpsyences.aspx

Banniere_CIRST

Le DSM et la clinique de demain (¿)

Screenshot from 2016-02-03 06-13-37

Le DSM 5 représente le risque d’une mise en cause de la clinique « du cas par cas  ». C’est pour cette raison que nous allons, dans un premier temps, tenter de réunir dans une visée critique, les travaux existant sur le DSM, l’hypéractivité, les « phobies scolaires » et autres phobies sociales.

Notre deuxième objectif est d’analyser l’idéologie implicite au DSM ainsi que les politiques « d’évaluation » qui l’accompagnent.

Le troisième axe interroge les moyens avec lesquels chaque institution tente de détourner ou subvertir ou encore de « faire avec » le DSM.

Nous gardons, naturellement, une place pour une réflexion qui se veut à la fois historique et épistémologique.

Invités

Mathieu Bellahsen
Patrick Landman
Yann  Diener
Michel  Minard
Responsable scientifique : David Franck Allen

Comité d’organisation

Gwénola Druel
David Bernard
Pierre-Paul Costantini
Laurent Ottavi
David F. Allen

Contact  : david.allen@uhb.fr

Vendredi, 5 février – Université Rennes 2

Pour plus d’information, cliquez ici.

This week in the NY Times: “Sybil: A Brilliant Hysteric?”

This week, columnist Clyde Haberman published a piece in the New York Times dealing with the fluidity of the Dissociative Identity Disorder diagnosis. The author chronicles its troubled past and uncertain future by making various references to the history of psychiatry.

The article is accompanied by a 12-minute video documentary entitled “Sybil: A Brilliant Hysteric?” which features archival footage and interviews with this story’s key protagonists.

Readers of H-Madness might also be interested in having a look at the accompanying comments, some of which read very like an ode to anti-psychiatry.

To access the piece and video, click here.

Colloque “Des livres qui rendent fou ? Interroger le canon psychiatrique de Pinel au DSM-5” (Paris, Oct 2014)

Programme_Final_F-page1

Des livres qui rendent fou ? 

Interroger le canon psychiatrique de Pinel au DSM-5

 

Colloque à l’EHESS (Paris)

Les 1er et 2 octobre 2014

105, boulevard Raspail

Salles 07 et 08

Organisation 

Andreas Mayer et Yvonne Wübben

Participants 

Vincent Barras

Rachel Cooper

John Forrester

Katja Günther

Andreas Mayer

Sabine Ohlenbusch

Juan Rigoli

Patricia Rosselet

Yvonne Wübben

Pour le programme complet, voir http://koyre.ehess.fr/index.php?1350

New issue of “History of the Human Sciences”

F1.mediumA new issue of History of the Human Sciences is available online. The April issue 2014 contains following articles that may interest readers of h-madness.

Mical Raz, Deprived of touch: How maternal and sensory deprivation theory converged in shaping early debates over autism.

In 1943, a distinguished child psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins University, Leo Kanner, published what would become a landmark article: a description of 11 children who suffered from a distinct disorder he called ‘infantile autism’. While initially quite obscure, in the early 1950s Kanner’s report garnered much attention, as clinicians and researchers interpreted these case studies as exemplifying the ill-effects of maternal deprivation, a new theory that rapidly gained currency in the United States. Sensory deprivation experiments, performed in the mid-1950s, further complicated the picture, as experts debated whether maternal deprivation was unique or simply a form of environmental stimulation. As experts strove to make sense of this new disorder, they relied on concepts of maternal and sensory deprivation, both to promote their own theories and to critique or refute those of their colleagues. This interplay between the two theories also informed new forms of intervention, including ‘rage reduction therapy’, which served as a precursor for controversial forms of therapy today termed as the ‘attachment therapies’. This article sheds light on a little-known aspect of the history of autism, and examines the far-reaching effect popular etiological theories have in shaping debates over emerging medical concerns.

David Pilgrim, Historical resonances of the DSM-5 dispute: American exceptionalism or Eurocentrism?

This article begins with arguments evident at the time of writing about the 5th revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. The historical lineages of those arguments are international and not limited to the USA (the current focus in the DSM-5 controversy). The concern with psychiatric diagnosis both internationally and in the USA came to the fore at the end of the Second World War with the construction of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-I) and the World Health Organization’s classification of ‘Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death’ (ICD-6). However, the linkage between categories of morbidity, assumptions about natural biological categories and treatment specificity with ‘magic bullets’ emerged in the middle of the 19th century in physical medicine. This article explores the legitimacy of current psychiatric diagnoses in the light of that international, not national, history of medical knowledge. In conclusion it explores judgements about current cultural imperialism (at times made about US psychiatry) and an older picture of Eurocentrism, which is now being refracted in more recent globalizing knowledge-claims about mental disorder.

 

Freud Museum Annual Lecture 2013: How Well Does Freud’s Work Stand the Test of Time? (Allen Frances, MD)

Freud Museum Annual Lecture 2013

The Freud Museum and King’s College London
present
The Freud Memorial Lecture 2013
Dr. Allen Frances:
How Well Does Freud’s Work Stand the Test of Time?

5 June 2013 7.30pm (doors open at 7.15pm)
Edmond J Safra Theatre, King’s College London, The Strand, WC2R 2LS
Allen Frances, MD, was the Chair of the Task Force that prepared the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), often called the bible of the American psychiatric profession. However, he has been a vocal critic of the new DSM V, condemning what he calls its diagnostic hyperinflation. His new book, Saving Normal, is part mea culpa, part j‘accuse, and part cri de coeur. It explores why psychiatry has always been subject to so many fads, while deploring the medicalization of everyday human experience and the excessive use of psychiatric medicine.
In the prestigious Freud Memorial Lecture, Dr Frances argues that the current under-estimation of Freud is in part the price for his having been overestimated during his lifetime. ‘It is unwise to worship Freud or the DSM as bibles – but equally unwise not to know them,’ he says. His lecture will draw attention to which of Freud’s contributions he thinks still relevant, which quaint historical artefacts.
A graduate of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Center, where he taught the Freud course for ten years, Allen Francie is now Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University, where previously he was Chair.
Convenor: Lisa Appignanesi, Chair of the Freud Museum and visiting Professor in Literature and the Medical Humanities, Kings College London.
The Freud Memorial Lecture is a leading event in the Freud Museum London Events Calendar. In past years it has been delivered by such luminaries as Edward Said, Slavoj Zizek, Adam Phillips and Michael Brearley.

Advance booking recommended. Tickets are free for King’s staff and students.
Contact eventsandmedia@freud.org.uk or +44 (0)20 7435 2002

Maudsley Debates: Enabling or Labelling? (King’s College London)

This House believes that psychiatric diagnosis has advanced the care of people with mental health problems.

Wednesday 5th June, 6pm (refreshments served from 5.30pm)

To coincide with the publication of the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), sometimes described as the “Bible” of American psychiatry, the Institute of Psychiatry is hosting a debate on the issue of psychiatric diagnosis.  Some argue that a rigorously  standardised system of classification of mental disorders forms an essential role in conceptualising a patient’s problem, in predicting what treatments are likely to be effective, and in conducting valid scientific research.  Others consider psychiatric diagnoses to be no more than labels, which lack scientific and predictive validity and serve only to stigmatise and objectify those who suffer from mental disorders.  These issues will be debated in the 48th Maudsley Debate on Wednesday 5 June at 6pm at the Wolfson Lecture Theatre, Institute of Psychiatry, Denmark Hill.  The motion is “This House believes that psychiatric diagnosis has advanced the care of people with mental health problems.”

Speaking for the motion

Prof Norman Sartorius, former president of the World Psychiatric Association

Prof Anthony David, Professor of Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry

Speaking against the motion

Dr Felicity Callard, Senior Lecturer in Social Science for Medical Humanities, Durham University

Dr Pat Bracken, Clinical Director of Mental Health in West Cork and author of “Post- Psychiatry: Mental Health in a Post-Modern World”.

Chair:  Sir Simon Wessely, Professor of Psychological Medicine and Vice Dean for Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry

 
Wolfson Lecture Theatre, Institute of Psychiatry Main Building, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
Contact: Hannah Baker
For more information, click here.
%d bloggers like this: