Introduction: This article addresses the problem of diagnostic inaccuracy in medicine, focusing on neurodevelopment. The central thesis is that the pursuit of objectivity and standardization through the DSM can lead to misunderstandings, ignoring the uniqueness of the individual. The objective is to critically analyze these manuals, advocating for a more holistic approach. Theoretical Framework: The text delves into the history of the DSM, criticizing its categorical nature and overlapping diagnoses. On the other hand, it incorporates the theory of subjectivity, which values understanding the meaning of behaviors, and Deleuze's thinking, which views subjectivity as a multiplicity, not a fixed entity. This approach allows us to reinterpret neurodiversity as a legitimate expression, not a symptom to be corrected. Methodology: The methodology is qualitative and theoretical-conceptual, based on a critical analysis of specialized literature. The study is based on authors such as Foucault and Deleuze and considers the political context of psychiatric knowledge production, including the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the definition of diagnostic criteria. Documentary analysis and review of works and articles that comprise the theoretical corpus are used, without empirical data collection. Discussion: The discussion emphasizes the profound consequences of incorrect diagnoses, such as stigma and ineffective interventions. The text advocates for a multidimensional and interdisciplinary approach that prioritizes attentive listening and the individual's uniqueness, overcoming the protocol-based application of manuals. Research Implications: This study suggests that mental health diagnoses should go beyond lists of symptoms, considering the patient's life history and sociocultural context. The research highlights the need for a more humane and less mechanistic perspective, encouraging collaboration between different specialties for a complete understanding of the individual. Originality and Value: The originality of this work lies in the articulation of unconventional theoretical frameworks, such as Deleuze's philosophy, with a critique of psychiatric manuals, offering a new analytical framework for the debate on diagnosis. The value of the research lies in questioning the instrumental rationality that dominates the field and in proposing an alternative based on complexity and subjectivity, contributing to more ethical and effective clinical practice. Conclusion: It is concluded that progress in mental health depends on a balance between technical rigor and clinical sensitivity, ensuring that diagnosis is a tool for promoting comprehensive health, not a mere classificatory exercise.
Souza et al. (Thu,) studied this question.