Their are many social implications involving mental disorders. One implication is labeling. Labeling often stigmatizes people and leads to impositions of treatment which invades privacy and limits freedom. Labeling can also produce stereotypes, prejudices, and harmful behavior towards those with mental disorders. One major flaw in diagnosing a mental disorder is that people often forget that the diagnosis applies to the disorder and not the individual.
Potential dangers are shown by Rosenhann's study. A professor and a group of students went to psychiatric hospitals in five states and asked to be admitted. Each person only complained of one symptom, which was hearing voices. Almost every person was admitted even though they really had no disorder. Each person was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, which is a very serious mental disorder. Once they were admitted, they began acting normal and no longer complained of hearing voices, but their normal behavior was continually construed as signs of a mental illness. Behaviors, such as writing in a journal was seen a paranoid behaviors. The students were kept on an average of 7-52 days-most were given the diagnosis of Schizophrenia in remission. Many are given this diagnosis even if they really had no disorder because no one wants to admit that someone was given the wrong diagnosis.
This study shows how easily flawed diagnosing can be, but it has to be kept in mind that these were unusual circumstances. Normally regular people do not try to get admitted into a mental hospital. The psychiatrists have to use caution and it is better to be safe than sorry. They are professionals and they have to take all complaints seriously. Nothing can be dismissed because mental disorders can be serious and potential harm to the person or others could happen if they were let go without the proper care.
False labels can make the conditions that they describe. The self-fulfilling prophecy ties into this because a person will often act based on what they are told about themselves and other people will often treat a person differently according to their disorder, which only exaggerates it.
Research conducted within the field of Psychology is governed by an ethical code of conduct set forth by the American Psychological Association (APA).
These guidelines serve as the basis for how research is approached, taught, and enforced. The main elements of these guidelines are taught in every psychology class, from beginning to upper level courses. Another safeguard that is placed to enforce the rules is the HSRB-Human Subject Review Board. These are committees that are put into place to review research proposals and to determine whether those proposals fall within the guidelines of research and the team works as a group to decide whether any research is unethical. Monmouth College has its own review board that consists of faculty members.
The ethical code for Psychology is presented as a written set of guidelines that each psychologist must follow. The full set of guidelines can be found in the December 1992 issue of the American Psychologist. This set is too long to give in full detail, but the main principles can easily be summarized. Eleven different points of conduct can be broken down from the original guidelines. The first issue deals with confidentiality. Basically, it states that no confidential information may be disclosed without the prior consent of the participant. The next issue provides that the psychologist will not provide any results that will be misleading and that the research must be carried out according to the accepted ethical principles. Third, the dignity and the welfare of the participants must be taken into account. Next, the research must comply with relevant federal and state laws and with professional standards governing research with human participants. Fifth, approval from host institutions or organizations must be obtained before research is carried out. Sixth, the nature of the experiment and what is to be expected from the participants and the researchers must be clarified before conducting research (excluding naturalistic observation and similar research). Seventh, the psychologist must obtain informed consent from the research participants when appropriate (when it will not jeopardize the purpose of the study). The informed consent should describe the research, inform the participants that they can withdraw at any time without penalty, provide the requirements for the study, and list any risks or benefits associated with the study. Eighth, an alternative to participating in a study must be provided if it is required by a class or given as extra credit. Ninth, deception is not permitted unless it is justified by the scientific, educational, or applied value of the research and alternatives to deception are not feasible. Deception is never allowed when it involves information that might affect a participant’s willingness to participate. Also, any deception must be explained to the participant as early as possible, preferably at the end of the participation but no later than the end of the research. Number ten states that the researcher cannot interfere with the research environment from which the data is collected unless it is warranted by the research design and/or the role of the researcher. Last, the psychologist must allow a prompt opportunity for the participant to receive information about the study (nature, results and conclusions) (Bordens & Horowitz, 2002). Basically, all of these statements imply that a psychologist will take measures to benefit the participants, will treat them with respect and dignity, and that they will do no harm
Decisions are made continuously but not all decisions are those of an ethical nature. Decisions are constantly made on what will be researched next, but this becomes an ethical decision when it is discussed on how it will be researched. The question on whether something will be researched, if it needs to be researched, etc., is fairly simple. It becomes messy when one has to figure out how the research will be conducted. Sensitive topics, such as, abuse are examples of the difference between the two types of decisions. It is fairly obvious that research needs to be conducted in this area to find out the consequences of abuse and other issues involving it, but it is difficult to decide how it will be studied because trauma is involved. This is when ethical decisions come into play within the psychological field.
Both individuals and groups have to make decisions within the field of psychology. Individuals are mostly responsible for being informed and competent within their area. An individual needs to know the guidelines that are set forth by the APA, they need to follow them, and most importantly they need to be a compassionate human being. These are all important aspects that one needs to possess in the field that I will be entering. Important decisions about the livelihood of people will be made daily, so it is important that this field has rational and compassionate workers. Overall, everyone needs to be educated on the implications of research, diagnosing, and the disorders in general. The population needs to know that the diagnosis refers to the disorder and not the individual, and therefore they should not be treated according to a mental disorder.
This is a site created for ISSI470, an academic course at Monmouth College