Évolution de la place du diagnostic dans la cure
In Freud’s time, there were already two complementary ways of thinking about clinical practice. The first is semiological in nature, aiming to establish a precise psychiatric diagnosis based on a point-by-point assessment of the symptoms observed. The second is nosological and is based on the therap...
Αποθηκεύτηκε σε:
| Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
|---|---|
| Μορφή: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Γλώσσα: | Français |
| Έκδοση: |
2025
|
| Θέματα: | |
| Διαθέσιμο Online: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Περίληψη: | In Freud’s time, there were already two complementary ways of thinking about clinical practice. The first is semiological in nature, aiming to establish a precise psychiatric diagnosis based on a point-by-point assessment of the symptoms observed. The second is nosological and is based on the therapist's subjective insights. The strength and effectiveness of this nosological approach stem from the therapist’s unique qualities, their sensitivity, and capacity for self-understanding, as well as their ability to psychoanalytically examine the meaning of symptoms and put forward pathogenic hypotheses. Depending on the period in the history of psychoanalysis, these two approaches have either judiciously complemented each other, or been ignored and opposed. Today, the arrival of international classifications in the field of psychiatry is revolutionizing the habits of younger practitioners, accentuating a damaging divide between these two ways of thinking about clinical practice. |
|---|