Posted by garnet71 on May 14, 2009, at 19:25:03
In reply to Re: What are our alternatives?, posted by bleauberry on May 14, 2009, at 18:59:05
I agree with Bleauberry that it's more systematic than anything. Does anyone remember years ago, many health insurance policies did not cover mental health (and I don't mean just therapy)--or only covered 50%? Why? Maybe some are still like that today-i don't know.
Some of it probably has to do with stigma; at this day and age, it unbelievable it still exists. People with mental disorders have historically been treated as defective human beings--cast out.
Have a heart attack in the street-and you will be rescued by stangers and get every test imaginable. Have a mental breakdown, and people on the street would stare at you, until a lone rescuer arrives. Then you are confined to a hospital and given shots of halidol.
"Over decades a body of knowledge is cemented, but it is always changing and evolving and growing at a rate faster than medical schools, journals, and "provers" can keep up with."
This is more of a big deal than we realize, really. The problem has begun to be addressed (well, talked about). The emergence of subdisciplines might help. There is a field called neuroendocronology. But it's interesting my endocronologist knew nothing about any research articles that have implications for long-term SSRI use on the endocrine system. How can an endocronologist be trained, educated, and keep up with - say - the neuroscience journals, in addition to their own field? I also noticed most of them specialize in diabetes only. I called around. Many would not even see me without a referral from a primary care physician, although it turned out that I have hypothyroidism, and who knows what else if i could afford the rest of the tests prescribed. For all I know I could have Hashimitos.
I think we need a research supercomputer invented by some brilliant team of computer scientists, statisticians, programmers, mathematicians and doctors to organize and keep up with the information. I also believe the interdisciplanary methods and education that are emerging are key, and trends show this is growing. It seems silly that medicine focuses on seperate systems when everything is interrelated. The cost to have 'teams' would be huge, however. Who is going to pay for it?
It's changing, but remarkably slowly. But i do believe it's more systematic than anything.
poster:garnet71
thread:895787
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090505/msgs/895826.html