一道心理学习题

根据在精神病“神话的托马斯Szasz的景色”，精神病理学医疗模型的一个主要缺点是
a.散开治疗的责任
b.不承认精神病诊断是文化跳起价值
c. 忽略生理因素的影响
d.不占这样病症象sociopathy
e.建议药物治疗是只适度地有效的在治疗精神病理学

Views on Certain Types of Mental Illness
Szasz elaborated on his insights into mental illness in several books and articles.
On the one hand, these could be viewed as tests as to whether his most
important theories apply to specific mental illnesses. On the other hand, they are
an answer to the criticism that in The Myth of Mental Illness he chose hysteria, an
example that seems to fit his theory exceptionally well. After all, hysteria, if it is a
fake illness, is one that imitates somatic illness. Afterwards Szasz wrote in
succession about addiction (5.1), schizophrenia (5.2), and sexual dysfunction
(5.3).
Here we may pause to consider that the term mental illness is becoming
obsolete in the Dutch language, including in Dutch professional jargon. Except for
theoretical discussions about the concept of illness in psychiatry, the term is
rarely used. The term suggests the existence of separate, clearly circumscribed
entities that can be interpreted as illness or even as units of illness. It is
noteworthy that Szasz fairly continually uses the nosological entity as focus of his
views, while exactly that has been so criticized.37 Neither the multi-conditional nor
the poly-interpretable character of the symptoms and syndromes that are
encountered in psychiatry is adequately reflected in the study of nosological
entities.38 In my opinion it is preferable to speak of psychiatric disorders rather
than mental illness. I will return to this issue in Chapter V, 2.4.
To Szasz the use of nosological entities seems to imply a certain distance
between work in the field and dealing daily with patients. The writings discussed
below contain general views on the implications of concepts such as addiction
and schizophrenia. Szasz almost exclusively studies what other authors have
written on the subject, and almost never refers to his own experiences with such
patients.
One will search in vain for a preoccupation with what is wrong with the solabeled
patients. Symptomatology and phenomenology are completely absent as
subject of further study. Specific cases are not even presented as illustrations.
This prompted critics like Cancro and White to note that Szasz seems to be so far
removed from actual practice that one wonders whether he knows what he is
writing about.39 Be that as it may, the books and articles discussed below are
about psychiatry as a social institution and about psychiatrists, but hardly at all
about patients.