Psychiatrische Systematik

Boor, Wolfgang de

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-52664-0

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The juxtaposition of scientific naturalism and psychophysical parallelism in Kraepelin's nosology has puzzled many, including W. de Boor in his 1954 review of psychiatric nosologies: “It is astonishing to see how Kraepelin put the need for a dualistic methodology with regard to the somatological and psychopathological side of psychiatry programmatically at the beginning of his work, in order to largely neglect this principle in its nosology” 57 , p.20 .…”

Section: Principles Of Kraepelin's Nosologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of Kraepelin's nosological principles

Heckers

Kendler

2020

World Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emil Kraepelin developed a new psychiatric nosology in the eight editions of his textbook. Previous papers have explored his construction of particular diagnoses, including dementia praecox and manic‐depressive insanity. Here we are providing a close reading of his introductory textbook chapter, that presents his general principles of nosology. We identify three phases: 1) editions 1‐4, in which he describes nosological principles in search of data; 2) editions 5‐7, in which he declares the mature version of his nosological principles and develops new disease categories; 3) edition 8, in which he qualifies his nosological claims and allows for greater differentiation of psychiatric disorders. We propose that Kraepelin's nosology is grounded in three principles. First, psychiatry, like other sciences, deals with natural phenomena. Second, mental states cannot be reduced to neural states, but science will progress and will, ultimately, reveal how nature creates abnormal mental states and behavior. Third, there is a hierarchy of validators of psychiatric diagnoses, with the careful study of clinical features (signs, symptoms and course) being more important than neuropathologic and etiological studies. These three principles emerged over the course of the eight editions of Kraepelin's textbook and were informed by his own research and by available scientific methods. His scientific views are still relevant today: they have generated and, at the same time, constrained our current psychiatric nosology.

show abstract

Section: Principles Of Kraepelin's Nosologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of Kraepelin's nosological principles

Heckers

Kendler

2020

World Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(" I should like to emphasize that some of the clinical pictures outlined are no more than attempts at presenting part of the material observed in a communicable form.") It is most unlikely that Kraepelin himself would have disagreed with the recent statement by de Boor (1954) that Kraepelin's groups of clinical pictures are no more than conventions ; they can be more precisely termed operational definitions. It appears, therefore, that many psychiatrists since have been more Kraepelinian than Kraepelin.…”

Section: Principles Of Psychiatric Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It owes its existence primarily to the work of Falret (1854), Baillarger (quoted by Zilboorg, 1941), Kahlbaum (1874), Hecker (1877), and Kraepelin (1920) " whose nosology presented the culmination of efforts in both France and Germany" (Zilboorg, 1941). His "empirical dualism" (de Boor, 1954), which combined cerebral pathology with psycho-pathology, was the strength of his system. It was based on clinical observations and took account of the lack of knowledge of etiology.…”

Section: Some Historical Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Kraepelin's orientation (Annex 2, page 640) has . been described as one of " empirical dualism " (de Boor, 1954), i.e., he combined cerebral pathology with psychopathology. At first, it seems, his approach was dualistic with regard to methods of investigation rather than to his concept of mental disorder.…”

Section: Principles Underlying the Psychiatric Classifications Listedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The classification of mental disorders

1995

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the fundamental difficulties in devising a classification of mental disorders is the lack of agreement among psychiatrists regarding the concepts upon which it should be based: diagnoses can rarely be verified objectively and the same or similar conditions are described under a confusing variety of names. This situation militates against the ready exchange of ideas and experiences and hampers progress. As a first step towards remedying this state of affairs, the author of the article below has undertaken a critical survey of existing classifications. He shows how some of the difficulties created by lack of knowledge regarding pathology and etiology may be overcome by the use of " operational definitions " and outlines the basic principles on which he believes a generally acceptable international classification might be constructed. If this can be done it should lead to a greater measure of agreement regarding the value of specific treatments for mental disorders and greatly facilitate a broad epidemiological approach to psychiatric research.

show abstract

“…13 Zur allgemeinen Geschichte der psychiatrischen Krankheitslehre, insbesondere zur Entwicklung der psychiatrischen Systematik, der Entstehung der Paranoialehre und der Schizophreniekonzepte vgl. [3,9]. Der Maniebegriff war damals weiter gefasst und schloss viele Wahnerkrankungen mit ein.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Der „Fall Sefeloge“

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1850 the mentally disordered Sergeant Maximilian Joseph Sefeloge (1821-1859) tried to assassinate the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm IV (1795-1861). Besides clarification of the political background to the assassination, the question of the delinquent's criminal responsibility has been posed from the very beginning. For the first time Sefeloge's case is examined from a medicohistorical perspective. Due to the importance of the circumstances, a forensic scientist and three well-known psychiatrists made this forensic examination. These medical professionals seemed particularly competent because of their common experience with psychiatric patients. This unique case from nineteenth century Germany is exemplary in that the psychiatrist was generally accepted as an expert witness to evaluate crimes in the context of unclear mental conditions. From there the development of forensic psychiatry could proceed without hindrance.

show abstract

Psychiatrische Systematik

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

The evolution of Kraepelin's nosological principles

The evolution of Kraepelin's nosological principles

The classification of mental disorders

Der „Fall Sefeloge“

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About