(Back to overview)

The philosophy aspect of the Munich work package is integrative; it seeks to "develop a conceptual framework for practical/ therapeutic interventions and to assess the ethical consequences of neurobiological approaches to the self." To that end, we began by defining the notions of health and disease in terms of keeping in mind both statements of fact and of value about any given condition, with the final judgement arising through consideration but not conflation of the two. To further the project, the main research questions being asked are as follows:

• What is, and what ought, the main therapeutic goal to be? Is adaptation or insight the more important aim?
  
  The answer to this question seems to be far more complex than previously imagined; it depends largely upon the specific patient's mental and physical condition, along with his or her requirements and abilities. In somatoform disorders it is unrealistic to speak of a "cure", per se, and so the most beneficial treatment outcome could be called an insightful adaptation that enables the patient to understand and recognise the behavioural and situational patterns that cause physical symptoms to arise with the aim of breaking the patterns or avoiding potentially triggering situations.
  
  
• What are the therapeutic consequences of a non-reductionist theory of the self?
  
  With a multi-level self-model, the "location" of a disorder can be situated on any of these several levels, or indeed in the connections between them. This seems to go some way towards reducing - if not removing - the worst of the stigma associated with mental illness: when the self is described as an actual thing it can fall prey to illness in the same way that a pancreas or a lung can. There is also a lesser sense that self-disorder is a moral illness; it is not necessarily caused by something the patient did, and so the idea of blame does not come into play.
  
  
  
• What are the implications of an integrative account of therapy?
  
  The evidence and methods of "harder" disciplines such as neuroscience can be usefully taken into account and incorporated within this putative therapeutic method in order to enrich the experience of patient and therapist and the quality of the therapy available.
  
  
  
• How might an overlap model of co-operative physical and mental health treatment work?
  
  This is a somewhat complex question for an introduction. Please see the attached references for an idea of the direction that will be taken.

The second aspect of the project aims at creating a system of therapeutically and ethically robust guidelines to determine which is the appropriate course of therapeutic action to take in certain situations. The guidelines will offer suggestions for which approaches are appropriate in which kinds of circumstances: is a neurobiological, psychological or social approach in prevention or treatment of self-disorders the most appropriate?

References:

- Fuchs, T: "Corporealized and Disembodied Minds: A Phenomenological View of the Body in Melancholia and Schizophrenia", in Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 2005;12.2:95-107

- Laureys, S., Perrin, F., Brédart, S.: "Self-consciousness in non-communicative patients", in Consciousness and Cognition 2007;16:722?741

-Marková, I.S., Berrios, G.E.: "Epistemology of Mental Symptoms", in Psychopathology 2009;42:343-349