Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To report problems to PEP-Web…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Help us improve PEP Web. If you find any problem, click the Report a Problem link located at the bottom right corner of the website.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

K., L. (1942). Dansauer & Schellworth Neurosenfrage, Ursachenbegriff und Rechtsprechung. [Verlag Thieme, Leipzig. RM 3.]. Psychoanal. Rev., 29(3):342.

(1942). Psychoanalytic Review, 29(3):342

Dansauer & Schellworth Neurosenfrage, Ursachenbegriff und Rechtsprechung. [Verlag Thieme, Leipzig. RM 3.]

Review by:
L. K.

This is “Heft 37” of “Arbeit und Gesundheit” and it deals with “Problem of neurosis, causal connection and legal aspects”.

Purpose of this monograph of 80 pages is not a repetition of the clinical pictures and diagnostic peculiarities of the neuroses but to point out the discrepancies between physicians and jurists in the judicial treatment of the so-called “accident-neurosis” or rather “compensation neurosis”.

Under dispute is especially the question if there is a causal connection between the neurotic symptoms and the accident.

According to medical science and psychology it has been established long time ago that the “accident—or compensation—neurosis” is not caused by the accident per se but that it is a psychogenic condition caused by the motive for material gain, compensation. Most Courts share this concept.

Both authors dealing with the problem of this type of neurosis had extensive neuropsychiatric and also psychological-philosophical training and great experience in the line of “traumatic” or “war neurosis” and “accident neurosis” in insurance cases.

Therefore the conclusions arrived at by these authors can be accepted by the medical profession, jurists and officials.

This monograph is divided into three chapters: (1) The neurosis at Court procedures, (2) Causal concept and neurosis problem from the theoretical viewpoint, (3) Results and conclusions.

As the accident neuroses are only psychological compensation reactions the causative factor does not enter the question.

As far as questionable or certain sequels of an accident can be thought of with the accident as cause, this can be proven only by physical findings by a neurological-psychiatric examination but not merely by establishment of psychological connections.

There is a detailed index and also a bibliography to this interesting and practical monograph written for easy grasp.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.