Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights : A comparative analysis of the conceptual relationship between democracy and rights in contemporary political theories

Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights is a research in normative political theory, based on comparative analysis of contemporary democratic theories, classified roughly as conventional liberal, deliberative democratic and radical democratic. Its focus is on the conceptual relationship between alternative sources of democratic legitimacy: democratic inclusion and liberal rights. The relationship between rights and democracy is studied through the following questions: are rights to be seen as external constraints to democracy or as objects of democratic decision making processes? Are individual rights threatened by public participation in politics; do constitutionally protected rights limit the inclusiveness of democratic processes? Are liberal values such as individuality, autonomy and liberty; and democratic values such as equality, inclusion and popular sovereignty mutually conflictual or supportive? Analyzing feminist critique of liberal discourse, the dissertation also raises the question about Enlightenment ideals in current political debates: are the universal norms of liberal democracy inherently dependent on the rationalist grand narratives of modernity and incompatible with the ideal of diversity? Part I of the thesis introduces the sources of democratic legitimacy as presented in the alternative democratic models. Part II analyses how the relationship between rights and democracy is theorized in them. Part III contains arguments by feminists and radical democrats against the tenets of universalist liberal democratic models and responds to that critique by partly endorsing, partly rejecting it. The central argument promoted in the thesis is that while the deconstruction of modern rationalism indicates that rights are political constructions as opposed to externally given moral constraints to politics, this insight does not delegitimize the politics of universal rights as an inherent part of democratic institutions. The research indicates that democracy and universal individual rights are mutually interdependent rather than oppositional; and that democracy is more dependent on an unconditional protection of universal individual rights when it is conceived as inclusive, participatory and plural; as opposed to robust majoritarian rule. The central concepts are: liberalism, democracy, legitimacy, deliberation, inclusion, equality, diversity, conflict, public sphere, rights, individualism, universalism and contextuality. The authors discussed are e.g. John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, Seyla Benhabib, Iris Young, Chantal Mouffe and Stephen Holmes. The research focuses on contemporary political theory, but the more classical work of John S. Mill, Benjamin Constant, Isaiah Berlin and Hannah Arendt is also included.

Recognition, comorbidity, and outcome of DSM-IV bipolar I and II disorders in psychiatric care

This study is part of an ongoing collaborative bipolar research project, the Jorvi Bipolar Study (JoBS). The JoBS is run by the Department of Mental Health and Alcohol Research of the National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, and the Department of Psychiatry, Jorvi Hospital, Helsinki University Central Hospital (HUCH), Espoo, Finland. It is a prospective, naturalistic cohort study of secondary level care psychiatric in- and outpatients with a new episode of bipolar disorder (BD). The second report also included 269 major depressive disorder (MDD) patients from the Vantaa Depression Study (VDS). The VDS was carried out in collaboration with the Department of Psychiatry of the Peijas Medical Care District. Using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ), all in- and outpatients at the Department of Psychiatry at Jorvi Hospital who currently had a possible new phase of DSM-IV BD were sought. Altogether, 1630 psychiatric patients were screened, and 490 were interviewed using a semistructured interview (SCID-I/P). The patients included in the cohort (n=191) had at intake a current phase of BD. The patients were evaluated at intake and at 6- and 18-month interviews. Based on this study, BD is poorly recognized even in psychiatric settings. Of the BD patients with acute worsening of illness, 39% had never been correctly diagnosed. The classic presentations of BD with hospitalizations, manic episodes, and psychotic symptoms lead clinicians to correct diagnosis of BD I in psychiatric care. Time of follow-up elapsed in psychiatric care, but none of the clinical features, seemed to explain correct diagnosis of BD II, suggesting reliance on cross- sectional presentation of illness. Even though BD II was clearly less often correctly diagnosed than BD I, few other differences between the two types of BD were detected. BD I and II patients appeared to differ little in terms of clinical picture or comorbidity, and the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity was strongly related to the current illness phase in both types. At the same time, the difference in outcome was clear. BD II patients spent about 40% more time depressed than BD I patients. Patterns of psychiatric comorbidity of BD and MDD differed somewhat qualitatively. Overall, MDD patients were likely to have more anxiety disorders and cluster A personality disorders, and bipolar patients to have more cluster B personality disorders. The adverse consequences of missing or delayed diagnosis are potentially serious. Thus, these findings strongly support the value of screening for BD in psychiatric settings, especially among the major depressive patients. Nevertheless, the diagnosis must be based on a clinical interview and follow-up of mood. Comorbidity, present in 59% of bipolar patients in a current phase, needs concomitant evaluation, follow-up, and treatment. To improve outcome in BD, treatment of bipolar depression is a major challenge for clinicians.