Personality and paraphilic disorders are a subject of controversy active in mental health. Personality diseases are distinguished by facing behavior patterns, cognition, and inner encounter deviating from cultural norms, causing real distress or impairment. Paraphilic diseases entail unconventional sexual interests causing distress or impairment to an individual (Rowlands et al., 2023). Some controversy develops from the fact that the diagnosis criteria of the disease are personalized and culturally bound, leading to topics about their validity and reliability. In addition, there are arguments on personality and paraphilic diseases that the diseases are overdiagnosed, and others argue that the disorders are underdiagnosed. The controversy connected with personality and paraphilic diseases indicates the complications and diversification of human behavior, highlighting the ongoing requirement for research and conversation in the mental health industry. This essay will explore the controversy surrounding the dissociative disorder, professional beliefs about dissociative disorder, strategies for maintaining the patient’s therapeutic relationship, and ethical and legal considerations connected to the disorder.
The term “Dissociative Disorders” is a familiar umbrella name in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical of mental diseases describing mental diseases featuring behavior, perceptual, and specification problems as fundamental defining features. According to Scheinost et al. (2018), dissociative identity diseases, dissociative amnesia, other specified dissociative disorders, depersonalization/de-realization disorder, and unspecified dissociative disorders are the only mental diseases being recognized under the category. Dissociative diseases are said to occur as a direct continuation of too much consequence childhood abuse or trauma (Brewerton et al., 2019). Advocates of legitimacy explain that patients need dissociation to subsist with traumatic encounters by critically repressing traumatic memories, thoughts and actions. The idea of the existence of repressed memories is specifically controversial since mental health experts do not believe in the validity of the presence of a causal relationship between oppressed memories and childhood abuse, but they hold the dissenting view that traumatic childhood encounters are rarely forgotten victims and the reemergence of the so-termed oppressed memories likely an erroneous finding by fanatic therapist and troubled clients. Dissociative diseases are sometimes regarded as socially constructive, brought by sociocultural expectations and components of modern society like mass media.
Although dissociation and dissociative disorders highlight a divisive topic right away, one can hold the professional belief that dissociative diseases are real. Clinical data supports the correlation theory between dissociation and traumatic encounters (Sun et al., 2018). The rationale behind one’s choice can be further supported by occasions where individuals diagnosed with the disorder are generally in a healthcare setting and represent the clinical control population. Psychiatric patients with sub-type disorders typically indicate significant enhancement after starting the recommended treatment options. It is essential to advocate for spreading relevant information about disorders under the group to the public, supporting early intervention, and promoting further research. In addition, dissociation is a mental condition that emerges after a traumatic encounter, further supporting its position specifically as a clear departure from routine pathology accompanies it. Psychological detachment from a traumatic experience is common among victims of severe abuse as it mitigates the impacts of intrusive thoughts and memories (Aron et al., 2019). This is compatible with the idea that traumatized patients often try to segregate their awareness from the reality of past traumatic encounters. The dissociative disease must be recognized and accepted as an areal psychiatric disorder as this will improve the efforts to highlight the most effective intervention for stabilizing patients with the state. It enhances the patient’s quality of life, minimizing the probability of self-harm or engagement in self-destructive behaviors.
Order this paper