Affiliations: Dept. of Psychology, Longwood College, Farmville, VA, USA | School of Social Sciences, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK
Note: [] Correspondence to: Prof. Steve Baldwin, School of Social Sciences, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough TS1 33A, UK.
Abstract: While an operational definition for the term disease is lacking in traditional medicine, consensus indicates that it infers observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology as causative for an observed cluster of symptoms. However, the term disease in psychiatry and psychology has a very different historical usage. It has been used when no systemic etiology has been indicated, it has been used politically for addictions, it has been used for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are bizarre, and it has been used to justify crude medically based treatments, such as electroshock, lobotomies, involuntary commitments, and the sale of powerful drugs. With the advent of new medical machines, such as CAT scans, PET scans, and MRI’s, a large volume of poorly conducted and questionable research has been pouring fourth to find diseases as a justification to promote psychotropic drugs. Politics and economics has replaced quality science. This article attempts to operationally define the term disease in order to promote qualitative and ethical research in psychology and psychiatry. The implications for such a definition will hopefully mean improved research, diagnosis and treatment in the mental health sciences.
