Posted by Ritch on April 17, 2002, at 13:51:34
In reply to Need help to refute the anti-biological camp, posted by Chris A on April 17, 2002, at 13:02:34
> I have a couple of 'friends' who have decided to go into counseling. They are lay people and have gone to couple of conferences that dispute any physical (chemical and genetic) contributors to any 'mental illness'. They specifically mention major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, ADHD, OCD and panic disorder. They consider 'chemical imbalance' to be a weak theory, since they say there is no way to measure neurotransmitters between human synapses. They quote Nancy Andreasen, M.D. from her book "The Broken Brain" as saying "Like the dopamine hypothesis, the catecholamine hypothesis is theory rather than fact..." They are taking that totally out of context for their proof-text. They also say that "labels" (what I call accurate diagnosis that lead to appropiate treatment) and telling people there is a biological basis for their feelings or behavior causes people to blame-shift and not take responsibility for their actions. Consequently they say that "mind altering drugs" (psychotropic medications) have no role in treating these symptoms (they refuse to call them illnesses - they have no trouble in treating Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. with meds, however).
>
> I realize causative factors are complex and that there are "just a few" (hundreds) of research articles are out there somewhere that refute what they are pushing. Yes, they are pushers. They have taken a friend of mine who has serious bipolar under their wing. If anything happens to her I will be MAD. Can anyone help me succinctly refute these misguided people? I want to write a position paper that is filled with documentable evidence that will help them at least soften up on the absolutely "no-meds" stance. As a retired RN with an MA in counseling and a doc for a hubby, I am angry that they wouldn't have had the respect to consult with us first prior to adopting their counseling approach. They can't be reported to the state grievance board since they don't charge for their 'services'. It is even more insulting since they know I have struggled with bipolar disorder. My cognitive damage makes it difficult for me to feel confident in refuting their arguments with solid science. They are very assertive in their lack of knowledge and misguided approach and I tend to back down from that. I know psychiatry and meds aren't perfect, but throwing them out would be a disaster for many suffering people.
>
> Help! I know this is l-o-o-ng, but this issue has really been upsetting me and I am scared for my friend, knowing how devasting her disease has been to her and her family.
>
> Chris A.
Gee, hate to burst their bubble, but *all* science is related to "working theories". Their assertions are just alternative theories as well. The monoamine hypothesis may be weak, but that is the best working hypothesis at the time. The weight of empirical evidence (facts) I would say is much *weightier* with it than with these people's theory. What would be interesting is if they put all their "cards" out on the table and see what empirical facts they have to support their theories. First, what is their theory? Can they explain it? If they don't even consider it a theory, they pretty much have shot themselves in the foot already!Mitch
poster:Ritch
thread:103336
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020416/msgs/103343.html