Pathogenic language in psychiatric practice and how to combat it

Abstract

Objective: Psychiatrists are susceptible intermittently to use dehumanising terms in their clinical practice, which arguably harm patients and their families. Our goal is to shed light on this unwelcome phenomenon and to develop the means to combat it. Method: We have examined journal articles, books on the history of psychiatry, and educational material devised for psychiatric patients, for evidence of what we have called ‘pathogenic language’. We have also sought colleagues’ reflections on the subject. Results: We have identified several terms that are ostensibly pathogenic, tried to illuminate their intrinsic features and devised guidelines to stem their use. Conclusions: Psychiatrists have the potential to harm patients and their families by using pathogenic language when communicating with them. We conclude that meticulous attention to this risk, coupled with appropriate ethically based and educational strategies, can contribute to the eradication of pathogenic language and prevent its recurrence.

Measuring recovery-oriented rehabilitation language in clinical documentation to enhance recovery-oriented practice

“…1 , 2 Compared with treatment-oriented clinical mental health services, rehabilitation services place differential emphasis on collaborative work done with (rather than to) a person to enhance cognitive, social, emotional and occupational functioning. 3 It is therefore important that clinical documentation in rehabilitation services adequately describes these interventions, records language that avoids dehumanising patients 4 , 5 and therefore reflects recovery-oriented practices and attitudes to all audiences, meaning that ensuring the language recorded is recovery-oriented in nature is important and relevant regardless of whether the documentation is shared with patients. Furthermore, the type of language adopted by mental health services, including that recorded in clinical documentation, has been found to be a mediator in the behaviours and attitudes of mental health clinicians.…”

Consumer? Views and preferences of people receiving public mental health care in Australia on the terms used to refer to them

“…In this context, meaning of the term ‘patient’ becomes radically different to that which was rejected in favour of ‘consumer’ in the mid-70s USA. Accordingly, Bloch and Haslam 6 recently argued that the concept of ‘patienthood’ is entirely compatible with a collaborative partnership between a psychiatrist and the person they care for.…”