This assignment focuses on vignette analysis and direct application of course concepts to the persons and situations presented in the vignette for each question. All discussions must take into account the legal and ethical considerations, as well as issues of culture and human diversity that may pertain to the situation presented below. Legal, ethical and cultural information is the course text. Cultural information is also in the DSM 5. You may use alternative resources for culture, law, and ethics to enhance your work. You are required to use current, evidence-based research taken from professional journals, to support the text material
Use the reading assignments thoroughly in an integrative discussion. You are also required to use evidence-based research to support and enhance the text information. A minimum of three (3) current research articles must be included. Remember to reference all work cited or quoted, in APA format.
Please keep your responses focused on what is presented in the vignette. Do not add information but use your creativity to support what you see in the vignette as written. Avoid elaborations and assumptions. This assignment MUST be typed, double-spaced, in APA style, and must be written at graduate-level English.
To complete the Vignette Analysis, please use the DSM 5 criteria
Assignment should be 5 pages total plus a title and reference pageDo not include the vignette in your response
Please review the Sample Vignette located under Resources
Please use the grading rubric!
Arthur is a 35-year old Middle-Eastern male who lives with his partner Gerald. Arthur works as a bus driver. Last year, he was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the local general hospital by his primary care doctor. At that time, he reported hearing voices of three acquaintances discussing turning him into a “zombie” or statue, and then using him “for their evil deeds because I am gay.” After 3-days of evaluation and observation, his symptoms subsided. He was discharged as stable with no medication.
Arthur remained asymptomatic for four months post-hospitalization until he experienced an incident in which his life was threatened by taxi drivers which Arthur believes was a hate crime. He reported hearing voices and was once again admitted by his primary care doctor to the psychiatric emergency unit for three days. As with his first hospitalization, the symptoms settled down after 36 hours, and he was discharged as stable, again, on no medication.
Now, two months later, Arthur comes to see you, accompanied by Gerald who would like another evaluation. Gerald reports that Arthur is up pacing the house at night muttering to himself. Arthur tells you, that he is “bewitched by three acquaintances, as they are jealous of me. They control my thoughts and actions, which causes me to become extremely fearful. I fear they may blind me while I am driving the bus, and all my passengers may be killed.”Arthur hears the voices of three people planning to kill him. The voices have a “congress meeting” in which they discuss him; at other times they speak directly to him and give him instructions. The week prior to this episode of auditory hallucinations, he reports feeling very fearful and apprehensive, as if he had done something wrong. He was unable to work and despite wanting to sit quietly he felt restless. The duration of the auditory hallucinations had been approximately ten days. Arthur admits to “a bit of an amphetamine problem” in the past, but denies any use in recent years. He reports excessive drinking in the past, but that his last use of alcohol was two months ago. He does admit to being treated with antidepressant medication in past years, for what he describes as “awful depressive episodes which forced me to take a leave of absence from work. I couldn’t get out of bed in the morning.” While Arthur admits to current depressive mood swings, he denies they are as severe as they were in the past.
Given what you see in the vignette, with consideration of a differential diagnosis formulation, what comorbid disorders may exist? What additional information would you need to confirm your diagnostic impressions? Choose one provisional diagnosis for Arthur. Support your provisional diagnosis by comparing the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria to vignette content. (See Sample Vignette Analysis located under Resources for guidance)Choose 1 theoretical model to explain how you conceptualize Arthur’s clinical presentation. From the perspective of this theoretical model, discuss how you would provide clinical treatment for Arthur. Integrate vignette content thoroughly in your treatment plan.(Remember to consider culture, law, and ethics when diagnosing and treating)
American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (5th ed). Arlington, VA ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8
BookSue, D., Sue, D. S., Sue, D., & Sue, S. (2016). Understanding Abnormal Behavior. (11 ed). Stamford, CT Cengage. 9781305088061
At the point when Marina Warner presents fantasy, she portrays a guide, a guide formed by the scene of narrating, whose pinnacles are populated by the monsters Charles Perrault and the Brothers Grimm, and a guide whose landscape broadens to incorporate the tales toward the east (Arabian Nights) and the narratives toward the north (Hans Christian Anderson). The guide becomes more extensive still, to house the storytellers who populate these pinnacles, offering their very own diverse interpretations of fantasy (Angela Carter, Margaret Atwood, Speranza Wilde – to give some examples). For fantasy has the same number of renditions as individuals ready to let them know. The principal fantasies started not from the pen, yet by mouth, went from storyteller to storyteller before being amassed into assortments eponymously connected to their gatherer. Later came the scholarly forms, stories gathered, re-composed and designed, a style starting in the seventeenth century that proceeds right up ’til today. As they blunder during that time they accumulate dust; conveying with them the social, political and moral states of the different minutes in which they were spoken and composed. Warner plots the characterizing qualities of fantasy; a short account populated with legendary animals, their storyteller is matter-of-reality, the tone exists all through paying little mind to any brutal demonstrations. They start in an unclear time and perpetually end ‘cheerfully ever-after’, their soul is of expectation even with uncontrolled foul play and savagery. Such lively idealism, can offer expectation in obscurity, yet uncover the states of the dinkiness itself. The two craftsmen I will explore in this article name their sources as fantasy, Rachel Maclean’s Spite Your Face is a “dull venetian fantasy” re-told from the Pinocchio story. Jumana Emil Abboud gathers and re-composes customary Palestinian fantasy, performing them close by different storytellers in her ongoing establishment and execution, A Happy Ending III: Tate Tales (from now on will be composed as A Happy Ending). Both use fantasy to remark on contemporary political settings; Spite Your Face was made in light of the Brexit vote and Trump political decision, A Happy Ending reacts to the social attack of Palestine amidst the Palestinian-Israeli clash. The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology characterizes legislative issues as: “… the way toward sorting out social force in a network. Legislative issues happens at different degrees of social collaboration, from the smaller scale level – the governmental issues of kinship, family governmental issues, etc – to the full scale level (worldwide legislative issues and worldwide governmental issues).” This paper will predominately focus on governmental issues at the ‘large scale level’ because of the idea of every craftsman’s scrutinize. The article is partitioned along the paired of substance and structure, however there is unavoidable slippage between the two, these have filled in as two general classifications from which to adjust my reasoning. First I will focus on how substance is utilized to address governmental issues, analyzing topics of Truth and UnTruth in Maclean’s Spite Your Face and considering the linkage of philosophy and political proclamation with the assistance of Terry Eagleton’s book Ideology. The wellspring of Abboud’s story and their watery affiliations and their connection to the governmental issues of water in Palestine today will follow. In the last area of ‘content’ Maclean’s study of commercialization will be investigated, close by basic compositions about craftsmen working in the post-web conventions. Nearby Brechtian compositions by Walter Benjamin and Terry Eagleton, I will take a gander at structure, and how Brechtian approachs exist (or don’t) in the methodology of the craftsman’s work and how these can add to a political message. Each will ask how governmental issues is tended to and how importance is delivered on each level and how this identifies with a political message/source of inspiration. Rachel Maclean Rachel Maclean is a Scottish craftsman working in film and computerized print. Known for her lavish costuming and utilization of green-screen innovation, Maclean plays every one of the characters her movies lip-syncing to establish sound or contents voiced by entertainers. Initially appointed for the Scottish Pavilion of the 2017 Venice Biennale (later appeared at Talbot Rice Gallery and The Zabludowicz Collection), Spite Your Face is the film I will focus on, so picked as it re-tells the Italian artistic fantasy Pinocchio and was made because of the Brexit vote and appointment of President Trump. The title itself an implication to Maclean’s perspective on the Brexit vote; ‘remove your nose to show disdain toward your face’. Fig. 4. Rachel Maclean, “Disdain Your Face.” Scottish Pavilion. Venice. 2017. Fig. 4 shows Spite Your Face in its Venice cycle; supplanting the special raised area of the deconsecrated church Chiesa di Santa Caterina. Screened on a huge scale, the film is shot in picture mode its tallness ascending to four meters high. In fig.4 we see the focal character, his name refashioned from Pinocchio; Pic, and it is his story that Spite Your Face follows. Partitioned into two polarities, Spite Your Face is part between an idealistic upper world and a dystopic under world; one actually living on the other. Told through a constant account the story circles; Pic is allowed the opportunity to climb to the upper world and is given a container of ‘Truth’; a scent elixir that vows to conceal any indication of his humbler beginnings. Once there he picks up prominence and force through selling ‘Misrepresentation’ an aroma that guarantees the exoneration Truth awards, however in reality sits idle. When his restricted container of Truth in the end runs out, the untruths he advised start to unwind, until in the long run he goes wrong, portrayed as a strict tumble from the upper to bring down world. Fallen Pic’s body is wondered about by the more youthful Pic from the earliest starting point of the story, thus the story rehashes itself. In fig.4 we see Pic in the upper world, a universe of rich gold and distinctive blue. On the other hand – as observed in fig.5–the lower world is a dulled palette of grayed tones; the intricate gold costuming of the occupants of the upper world supplanted by frayed and fixed pieces of clothing. Fig. 5, “Resentment Your Face” https://observer.com/2017/05/pinocchio-rachel-maclean-scottish-structure venice-biennale/(got to 3/01/18) Truth and Untruth To close the story, the Russian storyteller says, “The story is finished; I can’t lie any longer.” Fiction is frequently conflated with lying; they are each other’s equivalent words. As good stories fantasy regularly cautions against lying. Pinocchio – the story to which Spite Your Face takes its motivation is an ethical story that does only that. Maverick wooden puppet Pinocchio, won’t comply with any authority rather following his very own impulses and wants. His activities are not without result, when he lies his nose develops, he is deceived, hung and eaten by a shark. All through Spite Your Face we see Pic lie to an ever increasing extent yet the ethical exercises are vague; the limit among truth and untruths has gotten unstuck. At the very heart of Spite Your Face are two aroma items; Truth a fix all drug that hides any sign of the lower world, and Un-truth which vows to do likewise yet in actuality sits idle. Incomprehensibly, Truth, as opposed to uncovering the genuine idea of Pic, covers him, turning his skin sparkling gold. Falsehood then again, while promising to cover the stench of the lower world, does the inverse. Giving no camouflage, Untruth rather uncovers the character as they really may be. So Truth, doesn’t uncover ‘reality’ and Untruth doesn’t present a ‘lie’. Here we see the spillage among truth and un-truth, their limits vague as they transform into each other. In Ideology scholar Terry Eagleton opens up the thought ‘bogus’ understanding it as far as ideological articulation. “… ideological explanation include lie without either fundamentally expecting to mislead or being altogether selective, ‘I’m British and glad for it,’ for instance. The two pieces of this perception might be valid, however it infers that being British is an excellence in itself, which is bogus.” Eagleton diagrams a less twofold qualification of truth and deception, demonstrating the spot of belief system while deciding these. Articulations might be developed from ‘facts’ however combined their suggestion might be bogus. The political atmosphere ahead of the pack up to the Brexit vote spun so intensely around every side view of truth and bogus. These double differentiations adding to the perceptible divisions between those that casted a ballot Remain and those that casted a ballot Leave. In Spite Your Face, what is said to be genuine is in reality bogus, and what is said to be bogus is in reality obvious; while it recognizes the deceptive articulations engaged with later political crusade regardless it returns to a parallel. Maclean doesn’t grill the philosophy driving such articulations, and in this way we don’t develop our comprehension of the main impetuses of such crusades. The Nose and Phallus Maybe the most well-recalled highlight of Pinocchio is that at whatever point he lies his nose develops and it is a similar revile for Pic. As Pic’s capacity increments in the upper world, so too do his untruths and nose. Be that as it may, in contrast to the first, Pic’s long nose is commended with different characters wearing reproductions. At the pinnacle of Pic’s capacity and superstar, the nose becomes sexual organ, utilized as phallus in an assault scene. Emblematically at that point, the untruths are connected to a savage male force. In Maclean’s own words, “We have become desensitized by the predominance of sexist symbolism in contemporary culture and my method for tending to this is to go up against it in an immediate and instinctive manner.” While I don’t debate that we have become desensitized to misanthropic symbolism, I question whether only demonstrating a scene of rape Maclean is in actuality standing up to it ‘in an immediate and instinctive way’. Scenes of assault have become>GET ANSWER Let’s block ads! (Why?)