Posted by munificentexegete on February 18, 2007, at 16:20:58 [reposted on February 24, 2007, at 11:32:32 | original URL]
In reply to Re: definitions » munificentexegete, posted by Larry Hoover on February 18, 2007, at 10:39:33
> > I see no reason to distinguish a neurologist from a psychiatrist they are both supposed to deal with mental illness.
>
> So is a nurse on a psych ward. Unfortunately, so are the courts.
>
> The etymology of the words are clearly quite distinct. One is concerned with physical condition and function of specific tissues, and the other is concerned with behaviour. Can you suggest which is which?
>
> Lar
>Hiya Lar!
the point I am making is that we have the medical technology to test for chemical imbalances, receptor dysfunction function, ect. Rather than accepting that we have such physical disease without evidence after a 5 minute consultation without any tests, and potentially needing medication to correct the disease for the rest of our lives as is the case with diabetes, I am merely pointing out that such medical statements can be questioned. The tests exist, they can be used for any purpose not just for testing cancers, and they can be used on a daily basis if required.
I wouldn't trust a diagnosis of diabetes without evidence, nor would I trust a diagnosis of serotonin imbalance or dysfunction without proof.
both a magistrate and a nurse don't have medical degrees, and 50% of the DSM contains definitions of physical disease including Parkinson's and Drug induced disease. like I said they are not identical, however, they are closer than most people think.
poster:munificentexegete
thread:735727
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20070223/msgs/735741.html