Search

Abstract: The paper proposes that frameworks typical to metaphysics and art could be used in clinical treatment in somatic and psychiatric contexts to ensure improved care. The concept of the “body electric” of somatic patients which I introduced in previous work is developed further and paired with the “mind electric” of psychiatric patients. Both are defined as a patient's personally generated metaphysical possibility of being healthy‐within‐illness which is experientially actualized. Both concepts are used here to explore the alternative and the serious challenges to treatment approaches focused on clinical categories, disease, provision, and promotion of standardized or “black‐box” therapies. An argument against the idea implied by the hope for such mass treatments and corresponding overreliance on science, namely, that health comes from fixing and regularizing, is developed based on cultural history and the evidenced fact that personally assumed health, just like art and metaphysics, is transgressive of scientific data, and accommodates the untrue, the impossible or the irregular as actual and normal. Because normality is created only with the help of disorder and from within it for chronic patients, clinicians should offer them the metaphysical care they need to produce and actualize their possibility of irregular normality or their body/mind electric. Better treatments can only be provided when scientific advances will be matched with advances in the humanistic competence of clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Analytical Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There are three lines of argument in defence of coercive treatment of patients with mental disorders: arguments regarding (1) societal interests to protect others, (2) the patients' own health interests, and (3) patient autonomy. In this paper, we analyse these arguments in relation to an idealized case, where a person with a mental disorder claims not to want medical treatment for religious reasons. We also discuss who should decide what in situations where patients with mental disorders deny treatment on seemingly rational grounds. We conclude that, in principle, coercive treatment cannot be defended for the sake of protecting others. While coercive actions can be acceptable in order to protect close family and others, medical treatment is not justified for such reasons but should be given only in the interest of patients. Coercive treatment may be required in order to promote the patient's health interests, but health interests have to waive if they go against the autonomous interests of the patient. We argue that non-autonomous patients can have reasons, rooted in their deeply-set values, to renounce compulsory institutional treatment, and that such reasons should be respected unless it can be assumed that their new predicaments have caused them to change their views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This brief report presents preliminary findings regarding the use of short-term group treatment for bulimia. Ten patients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III (DSM-III) criteria for bulimia were treated in a 12-session psycho-educational format. Results indicated that all patients reduced the frequency of their bulimic behavior and showed change in attitudes related to pathological eating behavior. The preliminary results surest that short-term group treatment may be a moderately effective treatment intervention for bulimia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]