A diagnosis of conflict: theoretical barriers to integration in mental health services & their philosophical undercurrents

<p>Abstract</p> <p>This paper examines the philosophical substructure to the theoretical conflicts that permeate contemporary mental health care in the UK. Theoretical conflicts are treated here as those that arise among practitioners holding divergent theoretical orientations towa...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gerard Nathan M
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2010-02-01
Series:Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
Online Access:http://www.peh-med.com/content/5/1/4
id doaj-ab8d4a8c321e42b88e93fc13d55abf33
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ab8d4a8c321e42b88e93fc13d55abf332020-11-25T00:19:12ZengBMCPhilosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine1747-53412010-02-0151410.1186/1747-5341-5-4A diagnosis of conflict: theoretical barriers to integration in mental health services & their philosophical undercurrentsGerard Nathan M<p>Abstract</p> <p>This paper examines the philosophical substructure to the theoretical conflicts that permeate contemporary mental health care in the UK. Theoretical conflicts are treated here as those that arise among practitioners holding divergent theoretical orientations towards the phenomena being treated. Such conflicts, although steeped in history, have become revitalized by recent attempts at integrating mental health services that have forced diversely trained practitioners to work collaboratively together, often under one roof. Part I of this paper examines how the history of these conflicts can be understood as a tension between, on the one hand, the medical model and its use by the dominant profession of psychiatry, and on the other, those alternative models and practitioners in some way differentiated from the medical model camp. Examples will be given from recent policy and research to highlight the prevalence of this tension in contemporary practice. Part II of this paper explores the deeper commonalities that lay beneath the theoretical conflict outlined in Part I. These commonalities will be shown to be apart of a captivating framework that has continued to grip the conflict since its inception. By exposing this underlying framework--and the motivations inherent therein--the topic of integration appears in wholly different light, allowing a renewed philosophical basis for integration to emerge.</p> http://www.peh-med.com/content/5/1/4
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Gerard Nathan M
spellingShingle Gerard Nathan M
A diagnosis of conflict: theoretical barriers to integration in mental health services & their philosophical undercurrents
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
author_facet Gerard Nathan M
author_sort Gerard Nathan M
title A diagnosis of conflict: theoretical barriers to integration in mental health services & their philosophical undercurrents
title_short A diagnosis of conflict: theoretical barriers to integration in mental health services & their philosophical undercurrents
title_full A diagnosis of conflict: theoretical barriers to integration in mental health services & their philosophical undercurrents
title_fullStr A diagnosis of conflict: theoretical barriers to integration in mental health services & their philosophical undercurrents
title_full_unstemmed A diagnosis of conflict: theoretical barriers to integration in mental health services & their philosophical undercurrents
title_sort diagnosis of conflict: theoretical barriers to integration in mental health services & their philosophical undercurrents
publisher BMC
series Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
issn 1747-5341
publishDate 2010-02-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>This paper examines the philosophical substructure to the theoretical conflicts that permeate contemporary mental health care in the UK. Theoretical conflicts are treated here as those that arise among practitioners holding divergent theoretical orientations towards the phenomena being treated. Such conflicts, although steeped in history, have become revitalized by recent attempts at integrating mental health services that have forced diversely trained practitioners to work collaboratively together, often under one roof. Part I of this paper examines how the history of these conflicts can be understood as a tension between, on the one hand, the medical model and its use by the dominant profession of psychiatry, and on the other, those alternative models and practitioners in some way differentiated from the medical model camp. Examples will be given from recent policy and research to highlight the prevalence of this tension in contemporary practice. Part II of this paper explores the deeper commonalities that lay beneath the theoretical conflict outlined in Part I. These commonalities will be shown to be apart of a captivating framework that has continued to grip the conflict since its inception. By exposing this underlying framework--and the motivations inherent therein--the topic of integration appears in wholly different light, allowing a renewed philosophical basis for integration to emerge.</p>
url http://www.peh-med.com/content/5/1/4
work_keys_str_mv AT gerardnathanm adiagnosisofconflicttheoreticalbarrierstointegrationinmentalhealthservicestheirphilosophicalundercurrents
AT gerardnathanm diagnosisofconflicttheoreticalbarrierstointegrationinmentalhealthservicestheirphilosophicalundercurrents
_version_ 1725372694564700160