The causal explanatory functions of medical diagnoses

Sense-making and hermeneutical injustice following a psychiatric diagnosis

When one is seriously ill, the diagnosis given can generate questions about what it means and how to make sense of it. This is particularly the case for psychiatric diagnoses which can convey a biomedical narrative of the sufferer's condition. Making sense of one's diagnosis in such cases can involve changing one's self-narrative in such a way as to incorporate the belief that one has developed a disease with an unknown cause. To demonstrate the importance of self-narratives, I outline key themes in narrative theory which have been explored in various ways by philosophers and some psychologists. These theorists emphasise the importance of self-narratives in creating meaning for their authors. The biomedical narrative associated with a psychiatric diagnosis may conflict with the recipient's previous self-narratives. This may reduce the recipient's sense of self-efficacy and induce feelings of hopelessness about recovery. I argue that those receiving a psychiatric diagnosis may consequently be vulnerable to epistemic injustice. In particular, this includes hermeneutical injustice, where individuals lack the ability to understand or articulate their experiences in ways that make sense to them, due to their hermeneutical resources being marginalised by the dominant narrative in a medicalized environment. I consider two possible objections to my claim and offer answers to these.

Mental health progress requires causal diagnostic nosology and scalable causal discovery

Nine hundred and seventy million individuals across the globe are estimated to carry the burden of a mental disorder. Limited progress has been achieved in alleviating this burden over decades of effort, compared to progress achieved for many other medical disorders. Progress on outcome improvement for all medical disorders, including mental disorders, requires research capable of discovering causality at sufficient scale and speed, and a diagnostic nosology capable of encoding the causal knowledge that is discovered. Accordingly, the field's guiding paradigm limits progress by maintaining: (a) a diagnostic nosology (DSM-5) with a profound lack of causality; (b) a misalignment between mental health etiologic research and nosology; (c) an over-reliance on clinical trials beyond their capabilities; and (d) a limited adoption of newer methods capable of discovering the complex etiology of mental disorders. We detail feasible directions forward, to achieve greater levels of progress on improving outcomes for mental disorders, by: (a) the discovery of knowledge on the complex etiology of mental disorders with application of Causal Data Science methods; and (b) the encoding of the etiological knowledge that is discovered within a causal diagnostic system for mental disorders.