[Ethical aspects in the diagnosis of hysteria]. / Etické aspekty diagnózy hysterie.

The diagnosis of hysteria underwent historical development. The definition of the diagnosis by our classics and the contemporary definition lack continuity. The classics defined it accurately and were able to describe actual symptoms, their categories, links, and were able to differentiate subtly between different forms. In the contemporary medical documentation the description is vague. The entries in health records have sometimes so many gaps that it is sometimes impossible to find out on which symptoms or manifestations the diagnosis was based. This makes us think of intuitive, empathic or short-cut approaches. It is obvious that the diagnosis of hysteria has for different reasons new contents with the possible implications: formerly diagnosis, nowadays insult. One of the ways how to resolve this controversy is to use more general formulations such as they are in DSM III or in the ICD 10 which is being prepared, which abondon the contamined terminology and introduce more general precisely defined terms.

[Results of an investigation on abuses in psychiatry in the USSR]. / Výsledky pruzkumu zneuzívání psychiatrie v SSSR.

The authors present information on the work of a delegation of psychiatrists and lawyers from the USA in the Soviet Union which was accomplished at the beginning of 1989. The delegation examined a group of 27 political dissidents who were formerly (12) or at the time of the investigation (15) in psychiatric asylums either after trials or they were forcibly hospitalized because they were a "social threat" to society. Data are presented on differences in the diagnosis, sometimes inadequate treatment and on forensic practice in the USSR. The delegation investigated also the position in selected special and general psychiatric hospitals. Finally it proposed solutions for the assessed shortcomings. There is also a brief account of the view of the Soviet party on the conclusions of the report submitted by the American delegation.

[Stereotyping in evaluating the prestige of medical specialties]. / Stereotyp pri hodnocení prestize lékarských oboru.

The authors asked specialists of five medical disciplines and psychologists, a total of 360 specialists, to define the social prestige of their specialty. The sequence was as follows: surgeons, specialists in internal medicine, paediatricians, gynaecologists and the last place was taken by psychiatrists. The authors reached the conclusion that there exists a general stereotype of evaluation of the prestige of disciplines accepted by the public as well as specialists. It is a universal variable affected by various influences; so far is cannot be defined unequivocally. Negative evaluation of psychiatry is associated probably with the control and repressive function performed by this discipline. The low prestige of the discipline, however, need not lead to inactivity of its specialists.