'Dual Diagnosis' in Learning Disability
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A GENEALOGY OF ‘DUAL DIAGNOSIS’ IN LEARNING DISABILITY Joana Breda Vidal A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of East London for the Doctoral Degree in Clinical Psychology November 2017 ABSTRACT The dual diagnosis of learning disability and mental illness stigmatises and disenfranchises those subject to it. It silences the structural and material causes of distress, pathologises natural responses to difficult circumstances and legitimises the use of restrictive methods of governance. This study used a Foucauldian genealogical approach to explore the conditions of possibility for the emergence of dual diagnosis in Britain, its attending social practices, and the subjugated discourses that could provide alternative ways of constructing and responding to the distress that people with learning disabilities may experience. Analysis of clinical and social policy documents using Rose’s (1999) six perspectival dimensions suggested that dual diagnosis emerged within a historical context of governmental concerns regarding population control, particularly in relation to economy, productivity and social order. Distal conditions of possibility included the establishment of the state’s legal and political power over insanity; the medicalisation of idiocy and lunacy; and the emergence of disciplinary and biopolitical apparatuses of the state. The developmental (re)construction of idiocy opened up a possibility for its co- occurrence with insanity and presented a conceptual framework that would be taken up following deinstitutionalisation, when dual diagnosis offered an explanation and potential solution for the social problems caused by those who did not settle into the community as desired. Dual diagnosis is neither fixed nor inevitable; it is a ‘truth’ produced by power that has been reified and endorsed through clinical and government policy and practice. Implications for clinical practice, research and policy are discussed. It is proposed that a more helpful approach to alleviating distress, poverty and disability is to address the material and social causes and the power-networks that sustain these. DEDICATIONS I would like to dedicate this work to my father, Agapito Vidal (1940-2014), a lover of history, politics and current affairs who was my ally during both challenging and mischievous times, and who always had faith that I would succeed. I would also like to dedicate this research to Professor Mark Rapley (1962- 2012), who encouraged me to pursue the topic of ‘dual diagnosis’ and introduced me to a completely new way of thinking that will shape my personal views and professional practice for years to come. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr Pippa Dell for her supervision, knowledge and much patience, and above all for holding hope and confidence at times of uncertainty. I would also like to thank Dr Mary Spiller, Dr Ben Hawkins and Dr Jennifer Leigh for their insightful comments and suggestions, Dr Ken Gannon and Claire Correia for their diligent guidance, and Dr Elizabeth Field and Dr Rasa Mikelyte for their generous support. I am very grateful to my mother, brother and friends for their extraordinary support, encouragement, and much needed moments of distraction. To my daughter Zara I give thanks for bearing with me, and for giving me perspective, love and laughter every single day. Most of all, I would like to thank my partner James, without whom I would not have been able to complete this work, and hope that I can return his dedication, love and kindness when the tables are turned. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1 1.1 Aims of the research ............................................................................ 1 1.2 Definitions and language ..................................................................... 2 1.3 Literature review................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Introduction to literature review .................................................. 3 1.3.2 Search strategy ......................................................................... 4 1.3.3 The construction of the ‘problem’ of dual diagnosis ................... 5 1.3.4 The management of dual diagnosis ......................................... 11 1.3.5 Service user and carer views ................................................... 23 1.4 Rationale for study and research questions .................................... 24 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 26 2.1 Epistemology ...................................................................................... 26 2.2 Genealogy ........................................................................................... 27 2.2.1 Genealogy vs traditional historiography ................................... 27 2.2.2 Analysis of ‘emergence’ and ‘descent’ ..................................... 28 2.2.3 Emphasis on power ................................................................. 29 2.3 Rationale for genealogy ..................................................................... 30 2.4 Reflexivity and ethical considerations ............................................. 31 2.4.1 Reflexivity ................................................................................ 31 2.4.2 Ethical considerations .............................................................. 32 2.4.3 Personal account ..................................................................... 32 2.5 Procedure ........................................................................................... 33 2.5.1 Doing a genealogy ................................................................... 33 2.5.2 Selecting a corpus of statements ............................................. 35 2.5.3 Tools and process of analysis ................................................. 37 CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................................. 41 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 41 3.2 Analysis of descent ............................................................................ 42 3.2.1 The creation, differentiation and governance of ‘idiocy’ and ‘lunacy’ in early English Law: De Praerogativa Regis 1324 ...... 43 3.2.2 The political power of the state over insanity ........................... 49 3.2.3 The emergence of a disciplinary apparatus of the state ............. 56 3.2.4 The medicalisation of lunacy and idiocy .......................................... 69 3.2.5 The emergence of a biopolitical apparatus of the state .............. 76 3.3 Analysis of the surface of emergence .............................................. 84 3.3.1 Emerging medical research in the co-occurrence of idiocy and insanity: Late 1800s-1950 ................................................. 84 3.3.2 The ‘tragic interlude’ ................................................................ 90 3.3.3 The emergence of the welfare state: National Health Service Act 1946 .................................................................................. 91 3.3.4 Challenges to institutional practices ........................................ 94 3.3.5 Deinstitutionalisation and community care............................... 97 3.3.6 The ‘dual diagnosis’ term ......................................................... 99 3.3.7 Transforming care? ............................................................... 102 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 108 4.1 Summary of findings ....................................................................... 108 4.1.1 How was dual diagnosis ‘made’ possible?............................. 108 4.1.2 What has held it in place? ...................................................... 110 4.1.3 What have been the dominant discourses and their implications? .......................................................................... 110 4.1.4 What have been the subjugated discourses and what alternative understandings might these allow? ...................... 111 4.2 Implications for Clinical Psychology .............................................. 112 4.2.1 Clinical practice: Resistance at the local level ....................... 112 4.2.2 Research: The creation and dissemination of subjugated ‘knowledge’ ............................................................................ 113 4.2.3 Policy: Political Action ............................................................ 114 4.3 Critical evaluation and reflection .................................................... 114 4.3.1 Contribution ........................................................................... 115 4.3.2 Credibility ............................................................................... 115 4.3.3 Rigour .................................................................................... 115 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 119 APPENDICES ................................................................................................. 152 Appendix A: Bibliographical databases and search strings used ............... 152 Appendix B: Biopsychosocial factors associated with an increased risk of mental health problems in people with learning disabilities ... 153 Appendix C: Example pages from research journal ..................................