Tijdschrift voor psychiatrie · 2025
[The social context of psychiatric diagnostics and terrorism].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sizoo B, Strijbos D W, Glas G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Terrorism and psychiatric diagnoses are socially intertwined.
AIM: To provide insight into the various ways in which psychiatric diagnoses and the concept of terrorism relate to each other and what this means for psychiatric practice.
METHOD: A reflection on this theme from the perspective of the security domain and that of psychiatry.
RESULTS: Language use, applications of the concept of disorder and scientific research have an impact on society’s perception of terrorism. The role of the psychiatrist in the debate and the contribution of mental health issues on the path towards terrorism are obscured when only mutually exclusive extremes are discussed, such as ‘mad or bad’, ‘terrorist or psychiatric patient’.
CONCLUSION: Professionals in psychiatry are challenged in the public debate to constantly assess their role to safeguard both public safety and the interests of patients as (potential) terrorists.
AIM: To provide insight into the various ways in which psychiatric diagnoses and the concept of terrorism relate to each other and what this means for psychiatric practice.
METHOD: A reflection on this theme from the perspective of the security domain and that of psychiatry.
RESULTS: Language use, applications of the concept of disorder and scientific research have an impact on society’s perception of terrorism. The role of the psychiatrist in the debate and the contribution of mental health issues on the path towards terrorism are obscured when only mutually exclusive extremes are discussed, such as ‘mad or bad’, ‘terrorist or psychiatric patient’.
CONCLUSION: Professionals in psychiatry are challenged in the public debate to constantly assess their role to safeguard both public safety and the interests of patients as (potential) terrorists.