We review the ambiguous legacy of Emil Kraepelin. He established an approach that secured psychiatry’s place as a medical specialty, and his methodology has dominated the profession and defined its long 20th century, 1899–2026. However, his eugenic views weigh heavily because of the catastrophes in which German psychiatry was implicated and to which it contributed actively during the Nazi era that followed. Furthermore, his project to establish mental illness in the form of discrete natural kinds has failed in the light of scientific progress. Psychiatry must embrace the complexity of mental illness and engage more deeply with the inherently fuzzy realms of language, culture, technological change and political power. This shift should bear more strongly on psychiatry’s curriculum, research priorities, continuing professional development, practice, ethics and public engagement.

American pediatricians are now bearing the brunt of massive increases in demand for treatment of mental illness in children and adolescents, areas in which many pediatricians have not been well trained. It would be logical to encourage policy measures to increase pediatricians’ expertise in this area to improve access to care. But the expanses in demand for services are about much more than increased incidence of biologically-based illnesses. Instead, pediatricians are caught juggling between their traditional focus on health and prevention and a rapid rise in broad socially, culturally, and economically mediated distress among young people and their families. This article explores the historical context of pediatricians’ engagement with mental health and the hazards of the push toward treatment for mental illness. The historical perspective can help us develop policy more directed to broader goals of improving the mental health of our nation’s children and adolescents.

The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM) is an evolving document that serves the many mental health care disciplines as the primary reference guide for classifying mental disorders. While the successive framers of the DSM have attempted to base it on scientific evidence, political and economic factors have also shaped the conceptualization of mental illness. These economic and institutional forces have reinforced the DSM's use of a medical model in understanding psychopathology. Though the scientific evidence for a medical model is mixed and evidence for other types of conceptualizations have been given less attention, the medical model provides for reliable diagnoses that allot diverse benefits to treatment providers and researchers, as well as to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. This article will outline the development of a medical model of mental illness, highlighting connections between this model and corporate and political interests, and will show how this model relates to the various revisions of, and developments within, the DSM. Such an analysis is especially relevant today as the field looks towards the publication of the newest revision of the DSM and attempts to understand and integrate its proposed changes into current treatment, theory, and research.

Aboriginal children in Australia are over-represented in both the child protection and juvenile justice systems. Using Western therapeutic models of practice with Aboriginal people who live in remote communities can be highly problematic. Moreover, the historical legacy of past and present legislation, government interventions and racist service provision needs to be acknowledged and addressed prior to any service implementation. This paper presents a therapeutic model of practice that incorporates Aboriginal concepts of healing and spirit within a creative therapeutic framework. It will demonstrate how the model works through principles of community engagement and capacity building, enabling the provision of a culturally derived therapeutic intervention that involves a synergy of both Aboriginal- and Western-based healing practices. The findings from the implementation of the TeaH model affirm the need to incorporate Aboriginal concepts of healing, spirit and creative therapies into mainstream practice with Aboriginal people.

This article contributes to the search for suitable approaches to combat social exclusion faced by disabled people in capitalist wage labour markets. Referring to policy and service examples in Hong Kong, it reviews four social exclusion approaches – the Moral Underclass (MUD), Social Integrationist (SID), Redistributive (RED) and Collective Production (COP) approaches. These approaches are explored in relation to three key issues: (1) the diverse preferences of disabled people; (2) the myth of infeasibility regarding unconventional approaches and (3) the defects of the medical model of disability. The article argues that the MUD and SID approaches are more associated with the medical model of disability and emphasise individual changes. The RED and COP approaches contain more features of the social model of disability and are in favour of social and structural changes. The COP approach stresses the diverse preferences of disabled people and supports innovative services to combat social exclusion.

This article discusses recent academic and theoretical approaches to disability in Italy, situating them in relation to Anglo-American disability studies as well as within the Italian academic context, and sketches out the contours of an emergent Italian disability studies. The discussion centres on three terms that have emerged recently in Italy: superabilità (implying both ‘ability to overcome’ and ‘exceptional ability’); diversabilità (being ‘differently abled’); and transabilità (the desire for, or identification with, a disabled body by a non-disabled subject). The article considers the role of narrative in each of these categories, as well as the way that each deals with the question of limits. While discourses in each category construct or confirm a strong disabled identity, the article argues that transabilità might also be understood as the transcendence of identity on the basis of ability. This alternative understanding puts pressure on the question of identity itself and challenges the very need for narrative (re)construction.

The concept of recovery entered the lexicon of the mental health services in the 1980s following the publication of a series of studies and personal narratives which demonstrated that the course of mental illness was not always one of inevitable deterioration and that people diagnosed with severe mental illness could reclaim or recover meaningful lives. For a long time, recovery was not thought possible by many family members, service providers and researchers. However globally, specific policy and clinical strategies are being developed to implement recovery principles although key questions remain. In fact, the possibility of recovery is still debated by some. In this paper, we include information about the recovery model and the medical model; we provide evidence for recovery and document changes in mental health practices and policies incorporating recovery as the guiding principle. We also attempt to address the debate as to whether recovery is an evidence based practice. We propose that evidence based practice should be complementary to value-based and narrative-based practices and we suggest an integrative model that maximises the virtues and minimises the weaknesses of each practices (see Figure 1).

There is a long history of literature concerning integrative practice and how a systemic practice can fit with other models of therapy. Much of this literature has focused on establishing a space for systemic therapy within the dominant medical paradigm, and exploring how the medical model can be enhanced by systemic ideas. The outcome has been better practice, especially in child and adolescent mental health. Interestingly, however, there has been less discussion of the converse: the family therapy literature has rarely considered whether or not systemic practice itself can be enhanced by ideas from the dominant medical model. This article proposes that a biopsychosocial formulation can enhance systemic practice by: (1) holding clinicians accountable for their thinking; (2) facilitating a rigour and attention to detail that may prove useful when therapy falters; (3) opening up other possibilities for intervention; and (4) providing a way to engage with the dominant medical paradigm and support clients in negotiating their way through this system. Potential problems nevertheless arise when integrating a biopsychosocial formulation into a systemic framework. This article identifies these problems and presents ideas for how they can be managed in practice.