Posted by laima on March 1, 2007, at 14:26:46
In reply to Re: DSM, posted by notfred on March 1, 2007, at 10:37:02
Oh definately! I think that is one of the big drawbacks. On the one hand, I think DSM can be helpful and legitimizing, ie, mood disorders are medical disorders, not "ordinary ups and downs". On the other hand, reality is usually too fluid to be easily categorized, and like you may be suggesting, taking on a diagnositic label as part of one's identity isn't so helpful. I mean, will I ever feel genuinely my best if I take on "depressed!" as part of my identity, even when in remission? If I am permanently "depressed person", even when I feel good- do I carry inside an idea that I am "not normal", "not like other people"? Do I limit myself? That's a tricky fine line, of course, the answer perhaps both yes and no.
As for diagnoseses-
Recently I've seen news articles suggesting depression might actually be more than one disorder- proponents of the theory pointing to the wide array of causes, wildly different responses to treatment efforts, atypical vs typical, and so on. Especially, should atypical and typical depressions be split into two separate categories, since symptoms and treatments are sufficiently different to warrent a discussion? There is also an interesting but controversial debate going on, I've been reading, as to whether or not "schizophrenia" is even a useful term anymore- that "schizophrenia" is so wide and vague in the way it's currently defined, that the term is arguably an umbrella covering an array of distinct conditions, almost as clinically meaningless as something like "crazy", "neurotic", "burnout", or "nervous breakdown".* In current DSM, having only "negative" symptoms doesn't even count as schizophrenia or warrent any diagnosis (as far as I know) but now some are suggesting that it's in fact a real and distinct disorder itself. (Meanwhile, what are those people who experience only negative symptoms supposed to do? And what happens to them? Do people with only negative symptoms ever end up getting a sedating antipsychotic, since that's the treatment for 'schizophrenia', and since "everyone" knows 'schizophrenia' plus 'stimulant'= psychosis??? I've wondered about that.) So some of these categories seem too murky, broad, and fluid. Hopefully as research advances some of these DSM glitches will be ironed out.*Note to all- I want to be absolutely clear to say I do not doubt in any way, even a tiny bit, that people genuinely suffer from the conditions traditionally associated with these terms, or from schizophrenia. Nor do I have any doubt whatsoever that schizophrenia is comprised of genuine medical disorders. I'm talking about the terms themselves, and how in reality, a wide array of different conditions with a wide variety of causes and appropriate treatments can get lumped under a single term. If this happens, it complicates treatment, for one thing. Hope this makes any sense and isn't totally irrelevant or misconstruable.
>
> Yep, but I think some people here a too fixed on it (DSM) or their diagnosis.
>
>
poster:laima
thread:737261
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070224/msgs/737362.html