By first analysing the arguments of psychiatry's critics and the philosophical ideas of such thinkers as Freud, Eysenck, Laing, Szasz, Sedgwick and Foucault and by then providing answers to the many contentious and diverse questions raised, Dr. Reznek aims to establish a philosophical defence of the theory and practice of psychiatry. As both a qualified philosopher and psychiatrist, the author is exceptionally p[laced to undertake the examination of a subject which has hitherto remained untackled. It will be easily accessible to a wide variety of non-specialists as well. It will be of specific interest to those involved in the practice of philosophy, psychiatry, clinical psychology, social work and psychiatric nursing.

Lawrie Reznek addresses these questions and more in his controversial investigation of the insanity defense in Evil or Ill? Drawing from countless intriguing case examples, he aims to understand the concept of an excuse, and explains why the law excuses certain actions and not others. In his easily accessible and elegant style, he explains that in law, there exists two excuses derived from Aristotle: the excuses of ignorance and compulsion. Reznek, however proposes a third excuse - the excuse of character change. In introducing this third excuse, Reznek raises a controversial possibility - the abolition of the insanity defence.

Philosophy has much to offer psychiatry, not least regarding ethical issues, but also issues regarding the mind, identity, values, and volition. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry offers the most comprehensive reference resource for this area every published - one that is essential for both students and researchers in this field.

The three essays reprinted in this book were first published in 1963 as individual chapters of a psychiatric treatise entitled Psychiatrie der Gegen wart (Psychiatry of the Present Day). The editors, W. H. GRUHLE (Bonn), R. JUNG (Freiburg/Br. ), W. MAYER-GROSS (Birmingham, England), M. MUL LER (Bern, Switzerland), had not planned an encyclopedic presentation; they did not intend to present a "handbook" which would be as complete as possible in details and bibliographic reference. Their intention was to "raze the walls" separating Continental and Anglo-Saxon psychiatries and to offer a synopsis of developments in psychiatry during the last decades on an international basis. The editors requested, therefore, cooperation of scholars from many foreign countries, large and small, on both sides of the Atlantic. A section entitled "Borderlands of Psychiatry", in which MARGARET MEAD (New York) discusses the relation of "Psychiatry and Ethnology", HANS HEIMAN (Bern), the relation of "Religion und Psychiatrie", and ROBERT VOLMER (Paris), "Art et Psychiatrie", is a good illustration of the trilingual character of the whole work. Two of the editors, GRUHLE and MAYER-GROSS, died before the publi cation had been completed. In a kind of posthumous eulogy, Professor JUNG and Professor MULLER praised the initiative and accomplishments of MAYER-GROSS, "who during the last five years of his life had given a great deal of his time to this work. He had set his mind on a synthesis of German and Anglo-Saxon psychiatry.

The revisions of both DSM-IV and ICD-10 have again focused the interest of the field of psychiatry and clinical psychology on the issue of nosology. This interest has been further heightened by a series of controversies associated with the development of DSM-5 including the fate of proposed revisions of the personality disorders, bereavement, and the autism spectrum. Major debate arose within the DSM process about the criteria for changing criteria, leading to the creation of first the Scientific Review Committee and then a series of other oversight committees which weighed in on the final debates on the most controversial proposed additions to DSM-5, providing important influences on the final decisions. Contained within these debates were a range of conceptual and philosophical issues. Some of these - such as the definition of mental disorder or the problems of psychiatric “epidemics” - have been with the field for a long time. Others - the concept of epistemic iteration as a framework for the introduction of nosologic change - are quite new. This book reviews issues within psychiatric nosology from clinical, historical and particularly philosophical perspectives. The book brings together a range of distinguished authors - including major psychiatric researchers, clinicians, historians and especially nosologists - including several leaders of the DSM-5 effort and the DSM Steering Committee. It also includes contributions from psychologists with a special interest in psychiatric nosology and philosophers with a wide range of orientations. The book is organized into four major sections: The first explores the nature of psychiatric illness and the way in which it is defined, including clinical and psychometric perspectives. The second section examines problems in the reification of psychiatric diagnostic criteria, the problem of psychiatric epidemics, and the nature and definition of individual symptoms. The third section explores the concept of epistemic iteration as a possible governing conceptual framework for the revision efforts for official psychiatric nosologies such as DSM and ICD and the problems of validation of psychiatric diagnoses. The book ends by exploring how we might move from the descriptive to the etiologic in psychiatric diagnoses, the nature of progress in psychiatric research, and the possible benefits of moving to a living document (or continuous improvement) model for psychiatric nosologic systems. The result is a book that captures the dynamic cross-disciplinary interactions that characterize the best work in the philosophy of psychiatry.

This book is a concise introduction to the growing field of philosophy of psychiatry. Divided into the three main aspects of psychiatric clinical judgement, values, meanings and facts, it examines the key debates about mental health care, and the philosophical ideas and tools needed to assess those debates.