Personality Disorders Are Chronic And Persistent Beha 389306

Personality Disorders Are Chronic And Persistent Behavioral And Emotio

Personality disorders are chronic and persistent behavioral and emotional disturbances that are often difficult to treat. Some professionals argue that these disorders are not mental disorders at all, but personality styles—that these individuals are just odd or unusual. Review your textbook and a minimum of two peer-reviewed references and develop an argument for or against the inclusion of personality disorders as a diagnostic category in the next version of the DSM. Be sure to support your position with relevant research on the causation, diagnosis, and treatment of personality disorders. Develop your position into a 2-3 page paper in Word format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources and include a cover page and reference page.

Paper For Above instruction

Personality Disorders Are Chronic And Persistent Behavioral And Emotio

Personality disorders have long been a topic of debate within the mental health community, with ongoing discussions about their classification, etiology, and treatment. These disorders are characterized by enduring patterns of inner experience and behavior that deviate markedly from the expectations of an individual's culture, are inflexible, and lead to distress or impairment. Given their persistent nature and the profound impact they have on individuals’ lives, the discussion about whether personality disorders should be included as a distinct diagnostic category in the upcoming DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) revisions remains highly relevant.

The Argument for Inclusion

Proponents advocating for the inclusion of personality disorders as a separate diagnostic category argue that their persistent and maladaptive patterns significantly impair functioning and necessitate specific treatment approaches. Research indicates that personality disorders, such as Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), have identifiable etiological factors, including genetics, early trauma, and neurobiological anomalies (Skodol et al., 2019). They are associated with high comorbidity with other mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, emphasizing their unique clinical profile (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013).

Furthermore, including personality disorders in the DSM facilitates early identification, targeted intervention, and enhanced insurance coverage. It also standardizes diagnosis across practitioners, facilitating research and treatment development. Studies have shown that individuals with diagnosable personality disorders respond better to specific therapeutic modalities like Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT) (Louche et al., 2020). Recognizing these conditions formally allows clinicians to tailor interventions aimed at managing symptoms and improving outcomes.

The Argument Against Inclusion

Opponents challenge the validity of personality disorders as discrete mental health conditions, suggesting they represent extremes on normal personality trait continua rather than distinct disease entities (Gunderson & Sanislow, 2019). They argue that labeling enduring personality traits as disorders pathologizes normal human variation, potentially leading to over-diagnosis and stigmatization. Additionally, some critics point to the high rates of diagnostic overlap among different personality disorders, which undermine their validity as distinct categories (Trull & Widiger, 2018).

Another significant concern is the heterogeneity within diagnosed individuals. Personality disorders often co-occur with each other and with other mental health conditions, complicating diagnosis and treatment. Critics also highlight that the current categorical approach does not adequately incorporate dimensional models that might better capture the complexity of personality pathology (Zimmerman, 2017). These issues suggest a need to re-evaluate how personality pathology is conceptualized, possibly favoring a dimensional or trait-based system over categorical diagnoses.

Research on Causation, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Research indicates that personality disorders result from complex interactions among genetic, environmental, and neurobiological factors. For instance, neuroimaging studies reveal structural and functional brain differences in individuals with borderline personality disorder, notably in regions associated with emotion regulation and impulsivity (Schmahl et al., 2020). Early adverse childhood experiences are also strongly associated with the development of personality disorders, underscoring the importance of early intervention (Zanarini et al., 2019).

Diagnosis relies heavily on clinical assessment criteria outlined in DSM-5, although critics suggest revising these criteria to incorporate dimensional models. Treatment approaches vary but generally involve psychotherapy, with evidence supporting Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Schema Therapy, and pharmacotherapy as adjuncts (Louche et al., 2020). Despite advances, treatment remains challenging due to the pervasive and ingrained nature of these disorders.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the inclusion of personality disorders as a formal diagnostic category in the DSM remains justified based on their demonstrated clinical significance, impact on functioning, and the potential for targeted treatment. While critiques about validity and classification are valid, current research supports their recognition as mental health conditions warranting specific diagnostic and therapeutic attention. Future revisions might consider integrating dimensional models to better capture the complexity of personality pathology, but withholding formal recognition could impede research progress and clinical care. Therefore, the continued inclusion aligns with the goal of comprehensive, evidence-based mental health diagnosis and treatment.

References

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
• Gunderson, J. G., & Sanislow, C. A. (2019). Revising the diagnosis of personality disorders: Toward a dimensional approach. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33(2), 151-168.
• Louche, D., Gaglia, A., & McCluskey, T. (2020). Treatment outcomes in personality disorders: A review of empirically supported therapies. Clinical Psychology Review, 80, 101866.
• Schmahl, C., et al. (2020). Neuroimaging findings in the understanding of borderline personality disorder. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 5(4), 319-330.
• Skodol, A. E., et al. (2019). The DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders: Integrating research and clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 80(4), 19-27.
• Trull, T. J., & Widiger, T. A. (2018). Normal and abnormal personality: Issues and controversies. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 14, 471-496.
• Zanarini, M. C., et al. (2019). Childhood maltreatment and the development of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33(3), 313-324.
• Zimmerman, M. (2017). The dimensional approach to personality disorders: Advantages and challenges. Current Psychiatry Reports, 19(8), 50.