首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law >Parental Alienation, DSM-5, and ICD-11: Response to Critics
【24h】

Parental Alienation, DSM-5, and ICD-11: Response to Critics

机译:父母疏远,DSM-5和ICD-11:对批评家的回应

获取原文
       

摘要

There has been considerable interest among forensic practitioners in the proposals that parental alienation be included in the next editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases (DSM) and The International Classification of Diseases (ICD). However, there has also been a great deal of misunderstanding about the proposals, and misinformation has been expressed in professional meetings, on websites, and in journal articles. In this article we address four common misunderstandings regarding parental alienation: that there is a lack of research to support it as a diagnosis; that adopting parental alienation as a diagnosis will lead to serious adverse consequences; that the advocates of parental alienation are driven by self-serving or malevolent motives; and that Richard Gardner should be criticized for self-publishing his description of parental alienation syndrome.
机译:法医从业者对将父母疏远纳入《精神疾病诊断和统计手册》(DSM)和《国际疾病分类》(ICD)的下一版的提议引起了极大的兴趣。但是,对于这些建议也存在很多误解,并且在专业会议,网站和期刊文章中表达了错误的信息。在本文中,我们解决了有关父母疏远的四个常见误解:缺乏研究来支持将其作为诊断。采用父母疏远作为诊断将导致严重的不良后果;父母疏远的倡导者是出于自我服务或恶意的动机;理查德·加德纳(Richard Gardner)会因自己发表的有关父母疏离综合症的描述而受到批评。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号