Diagnosing of Mental Health Disorders: Pros and Cons

Diagnosing of Mental Health Disorders: Pros and Cons

In mental health services, the diagnosis of mental health conditions often feels like a double-edged sword. Over the years in mental health practice, I have heard varying opinions about the use of mental health diagnosing from clients as well as from colleagues. This brief opinion article is based on professional experience as well as on my work towards becoming an advanced scholar-practitioner as a clinical social worker.

For the benefits, many clients express a sense of relief in receiving a label that helps them make sense of their experiences. A diagnosis can validate their struggles, reduce feelings of isolation, and provide answers for understanding symptoms. It can also open doors to specific treatments, insurance coverage, and social support systems. Unfortunately, as mental health professionals we are “required” to provide a diagnosis in accordance with health care insurance policies, and to ensure that the services are covered. Yeah, this is the bureaucratic part of society in having to justify mental health treatment. Additionally, sometimes diagnosing may also provide a guide for using beneficial evidence-based treatment to assist clients in resolving their challenges.

However, as a therapist, I frequently find that a strict focus on diagnosing can overshadow or even complicate an individual’s unique story. The act of diagnosing and attempting to label complex human experiences, feels as if it is reducing a person to a label rather than seeing them as a whole and unique person. Additionally, diagnosing may also limit hope and a scope of treatment approaches. Isn’t it more important to focus on an individual’s strengths, resilience, unique experiences, and even personal goals?

Instead of centering treatment on diagnosis alone, I advocate for approaches that emphasize individualized care and evidence-based interventions tailored to specific symptoms and functional challenges. For example, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques can be adapted for anxiety, depression, or trauma, regardless of diagnostic category. Accelerated Resolution Therapy (ART) can be used for the same challenges, again regardless of an individual’s diagnosis. Treatment focus should always be on improving daily functioning, emotional regulation, and quality of life rather than fitting someone neatly into a diagnostic box.

Alternatives to diagnosis-driven treatment include formulation-based approaches, where the clinician and client collaboratively explore the origins and maintain factors of difficulties. Similarly, the use of transdiagnostic methods (TDMs) review an individual’s vulnerability and response mechanisms and can create a strengths-based road map for highly effective treatment of mental and emotional health. These methods foster a personalized treatment plan that evolves over time, reflecting the client’s progress and changing needs.

Ultimately, while diagnosis has its place as a tool, it should not be the centerpiece of mental health care. Prioritizing evidence-based treatments tailored to an individual’s needs ensures flexibility, compassion, and effective support. The goal is not merely to assign a label but to empower clients toward meaningful recovery and well-being. Again, my goal is to work with an individual, see their unique qualities, and to focus on their interpersonal strengths, even when they cannot recognize these strengths within themselves.

Dr. Judith L. Allen, DSW, LCSW

Counseling Corner Psychotherapist & Director of Clinical Services