The ethics of a diagnosis

The Hippocratic oath for physicians is to “do no harm.” However, in the world of psychiatry and psychology, over-diagnosis is rampant. The alphabet soup of diagnostic abbreviations from the DSM can lead to an overwhelming deficit in the special education system, which is frankly not prepared to help each and every individual in the best way possible. The numbers are just too overwhelming and teachers and parents alike, are in tears.

How did we get here and what are we to do? Get rid of standardization? Advocate for full inclusion? I don’t know the answers to this complex systemic problem, however it may be prudent and beneficial for a child to only carry the diagnoses needed for a certain situation, for example, extra support in school, or for insurance reimbursement, and possibly to provide some self reflection on the way he or she has been created or how their brain works, so to speak.

Anything other than that, a diagnosis is just that, a label. When working at the shelter, children and adolescents have been over diagnosed and over pathologized and it ended up affecting them in harmful ways. For instance, those in the system “read really hard on paper” and therefore often do not find a home or a placement that will take them. A diagnosis benefits no one if it leaves them apart from the community.

Therefore, it is important to consider the “ethics of a diagnosis,” the purpose it serves, and whether it is benefiting the child – now or in the future. Try to find a counselor, therapist, psychiatrist or psychologist that understands the nuances of a diagnosis and when and when not to use it. Children are our most vulnerable and we need to be considerate of the paper trails we create and that may follow them.