Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Review
.2002 May;27(3):168-75.

What's in a name? The evolution of the nomenclature of antipsychotic drugs

Affiliations
Review

What's in a name? The evolution of the nomenclature of antipsychotic drugs

Caroline King et al. J Psychiatry Neurosci.2002 May.

Abstract
in English, French

Objective: Psychiatry as a science and psychotherapy as an art thrive on words, words that were often coined arbitrarily and that are often used idiosyncratically. This article examines the origins, progenitors and usage of the word "antipsychotic" and explores its ramifications.

Methods: Original publications from the 1950s onward, beginning with the report of the discovery of chlorpromazine, were sought for their specific references to the terminology of drugs used to treat psychotic disorders. Preferences for individual words, debates surrounding their adoption and changing trends in their use are reviewed from scientific, clinical and social perspectives.

Results: Over the past 50 years the drugs used in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders have been variously labelled "tranquillizers," "neuroleptics," "ataractics," "antipsychotics" and "anti-schizophrenic agents." These terms, coined out of necessity, were quickly accepted with little debate or due consideration of their clinical, personal and social implications. The development of a new generation of antipsychotic drugs as well as the prospect of treatment strategies with diverse mechanisms of action highlight the need to re-examine the issues involved in the naming, classification and labelling of psychotropic drugs in general and of "antipsychotics" in particular.

Conclusion: This historical overview of the labelling of drugs used in the treatment of psychoses reflects the confusion and controversy surrounding the naming and classification of drugs and diseases in general. It also illustrates the dynamic interplay of personal beliefs, rational thinking, practical considerations and societal values in shaping the scientific process.

Objectif: La psychiatrie comme science et la psychothérapie comme art se nourrissent de mots, souvent créés arbitrairement et souvent utilisés de façon idiosyncratique. Cet article analyse les origines, les antécédents et l'usage du mot «antipsychotic» (antipsychotique) et en explore les ramifications.

Méthodes: On a cherché des publications originales à compter des années 1950, à commencer par le rapport sur la découverte de la chlorpromazine, pour y trouver des renvois précis à la terminologie des médicaments utilisés pour traiter les psychoses. On a étudié les préférences manifestées à l'égard de certains mots, les débats entourant leur adoption et l'évolution des tendances de leur utilisation des points de vue scientifique, clinique et social.

Résultats: Au cours des 50 dernières années, les médicaments utilisés pour traiter la schizophrénie et d'autres psychoses ont porté divers noms : «tranquillizers» (tranquillisants), «neuroleptics» (neuroleptiques), «ataractics» (ataraxiques), «antipsychotics» (antipsychotiques) et «anti-schizophrenic agents» «agents antischizophréniques». Ces termes issus de la nécessité ont été acceptés rapidement après des débats limités au cours desquels on a peu réfléchi à leurs répercussions cliniques, personnelles et sociales. La mise au point d'une nouvelle génération de médicaments antipsychotiques, ainsi que les perspectives de stratégies de traitement ayant divers mécanismes d'action, démontrent qu'il faut réexaminer les enjeux intervenant dans la dénomination, la classification et l'identification des psychotropes en général et des «antipsychotiques» en particulier.

Conclusion: Cette rétrospective historique de l'identification des médicaments utilisés pour traiter les psychoses traduit la confusion et la controverse qui entourent la désignation et la classification des médicaments et des maladies en général. Elle illustre aussi l'interaction dynamique entre les croyances personnelles, la réflexion rationnelle, les considérations pratiques et les valeurs de la société dans l'orientation du processus scientifique.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Crystal D. The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
    1. Ehrlich E. What is in a name? New York: Henry Holt and Company; 1999.
    1. Wolman P. International encyclopedia of psychiatry, psychology, psychoanalysis and neurology. New York: Aesculapius Publishers; 1997.
    1. Ayd F. Lexicon of psychiatry, neurology and the neurosciences. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1995.
    1. Macht DI. Contributions to psychopharmacology. Johns Hopkins Hosp Bull 1920;31:167-73.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp