Defining mental disorder. Exploring the 'natural function' approach

37Citations
Citations of this article
119Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Due to several socio-political factors, to many psychiatrists only a strictly objective definition of mental disorder, free of value components, seems really acceptable. In this paper, I will explore a variant of such an objectivist approach to defining metal disorder, natural function objectivism. Proponents of this approach make recourse to the notion of natural function in order to reach a value-free definition of mental disorder. The exploration of Christopher Boorse's 'biostatistical' account of natural function (1) will be followed an investigation of the 'hybrid naturalism' approach to natural functions by Jerome Wakefield (2). In the third part, I will explore two proposals that call into question the whole attempt to define mental disorder (3). I will conclude that while 'natural function objectivism' accounts fail to provide the backdrop for a reliable definition of mental disorder, there is no compelling reason to conclude that a definition cannot be achieved. © 2011 Varga; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Varga, S. (2011). Defining mental disorder. Exploring the “natural function” approach. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-6-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free