unit name is behavioural perspective of mental wellbeingHi, this is one of the big assignment that I really need to pass. This is very indeptassignment so please go thru assignment guide and rubric...

“Psychopathology diagnostic labels do not assist people to obtain the best possible outcome from mental health care”: Critical Analysis and Evaluation
Mental illness has a severe impact on the overall health of individuals, which is why it is often stated that there is no health without mental health. World Health Organisation [WHO] (2021) highlights that mental health is the key component of the overall wellbeing of individuals. The report concluded under the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing 2007 undertaken by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] (2020) found that at least 20% of Australians in the age
acket of 16-85 years have had an experience of mental disorder in their life. The more recent National Health Survey 2017-18 indicated that 4.8 million Australians i.e., 1in 5 reported mental or behavioural condition (AIHW, 2020). The rising mental health issues and illness have led to the development of powerful diagnostic tools to assist clinicians in collecting complex data from patients and analysing it against pre-set parameters. The work by Perkins et al. (2018) mentions that there are multiple assessments required for evaluating a patient psychiatrically and a supportive framework is necessary to take the assessment in the right direction. It is with the help of these psychiatric tools that psychopathology diagnostic labels like depression, anxiety, OCD, bipolar, etc. come into existence, which not only builds a stigma in the society but also clouds the understanding of the experts.
Through this paper, it is argued that psychopathology diagnostic labels do not assist people in obtaining the best possible outcomes from mental health care. They hurt the mental health outcomes of the people diagnosed with mental illness. The paper first examines the reliability and validity of diagnostic tools like DSM and ICD2. Then it focuses on the concepts of abnormality, medicalisation and stigma linked with mental illness diagnostic labels. Further, the implications of these diagnostic labels on recovery, learning and growth and rights, respect, choice and control are analysed. Finally, the paper discusses the application of conclusions drawn through critical analysis on the practical future application in delivering quality care.
Poor Reliability and Validity of the DSM and ICD2
    The two popularly used diagnostic tools DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] and ICD [International Classification for Diseases] have debated viewpoint towards them due to their conflicted origin. The discussion presented by Sellbom et al. (2020) highlights that the validation of the diagnostic tools DSM and ICD2 is challenged based on the limited fundamental underlying of the creation of these diagnostic tools with no focus on the biological aspects of tested human beings. There is a lack of consistency in the inter-rater reliability of these tools with different experts not able to deliver the same diagnosis for patients based on the defined set of symptoms. Soll et al. (2017) highlighted in their study that the oversimplification of human behaviours through the application of diagnostic tools leads to the attainment of the wrong diagnosis in most cases. The evidence from the documentary ‘How mad are you’ presented by Hickey et al. (2018) reflects on the lack of validity and reliability of DSM and ICD considering Bree’s case who was labelled to have anxiety based on her reactions, which are later confirmed to be a normal human behaviour under stressful situations.
Normality and Abnormality
The identification of mental health from mental illness is often difficult and separated by so thin a line that it is almost invisible through the application of diagnostic tools like DSM and ICD. As discussed in the study by LaCaille et al. (2019) it is mentioned that the process of mapping normality and identifying abnormality is linked more to the context or references and is dominated by the cultural and social norms. It is often found that what is considered normal in some cultures can because of the identification of abnormality in others. In the work by Bentall (1992) a satire on the concept of normality and abnormality is presented by suggesting that happiness should be classified as a psychiatric disorder, as the extent of happiness one can extract from a situation differs considerably from others, which may lead to ‘abnormal’ behaviour i.e., distress and dysfunction.
Medicalisation and its Impact
The transformation of normality into abnormality is based on another field of science i.e., pathologisation or medicalisation (Ford, 2010) wherein non-medical problems are...