elpais.com
Concerns Raised About "Highly Sensitive Person" Diagnosis in Children
An opinion piece argues against the diagnosis of "Highly Sensitive Person" (HSP) in children, citing the lack of DSM-5 recognition and potential for misdiagnosis, suggesting individualized assessment as an alternative.
- How does the author connect the over-diagnosis of HSP to broader trends in mental health?
- The author connects the labeling of HSP to a broader trend of over-diagnosing and medicalizing normal variations in personality. This practice can stigmatize children and distract from addressing actual underlying mental health conditions. The author emphasizes the importance of accepting individual differences rather than pathologizing them.
- What are the potential long-term implications of shifting away from the HSP label toward individualized assessment and care?
- The author suggests that focusing on individual assessment rather than labeling allows for a more nuanced understanding of each child's unique needs. This approach would avoid potentially stigmatizing labels and promote individualized care based on actual behaviors and needs, rather than a diagnostic label. The long-term impact of avoiding premature labeling could reduce unnecessary medicalization and promote a more holistic approach to child development.
- What are the potential harms of labeling children as "Highly Sensitive Persons" (HSP) when it is not a recognized diagnosis in the DSM-5?
- The article discusses the concerns surrounding the diagnosis of "Highly Sensitive Person" (HSP) in children. The author argues that HSP is not a recognized disorder in the DSM-5 and that labeling children as such may be unnecessary and potentially harmful. This labeling could lead to unnecessary interventions and overshadow the child's individual needs.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing consistently emphasizes the potential harms of labeling children as PAS (Highly Sensitive Person), neglecting any potential benefits or the validity of the concept for some individuals. The introduction sets a negative tone, and this bias is reinforced throughout the text.
Language Bias
The author uses loaded language, such as "pathologized," "laxitud," and "autodiagnosticamos," which carry negative connotations and potentially influence the reader's perception. More neutral terms could be used to present a more objective perspective. For example, instead of using "pathologized", a more neutral alternative could be "labeled" or "categorized."
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of potential benefits or advantages associated with high sensitivity. While the author focuses on the negative impacts and the potential for misdiagnosis, a balanced perspective acknowledging positive aspects would enrich the analysis. Additionally, there is no mention of support resources for those who identify as highly sensitive.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing high sensitivity as either a normal personality trait or a pathological condition, neglecting the possibility of a spectrum or other intermediate classifications. The author's argument rests on the absence of a DSM-5 diagnosis, which may not encompass the full range of human experience.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article emphasizes the importance of accepting children with heightened sensitivities without pathologizing them. This approach aligns with promoting mental health and well-being by avoiding unnecessary labeling and focusing on individual acceptance. By rejecting the 'PAS' label, the author advocates for a holistic approach to understanding and supporting these children, thus contributing positively to their mental well-being.