Psycho-Babble Substance Use | about substance use | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » alexandra_k

Posted by SLS on November 6, 2005, at 12:03:31

In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 18:39:56

Hi A_K.

When you say to me "Sorry but... It just ain't that simple...", I think I had already grasped that concept prior to submitting my first post along this thread. Complexity attracts me. Simplicity is often a brilliant way to manage the complex.

> This one talks about the EXTREMISTS on both sides. So... The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle:

No. I don't think so. I think the Truth lies in all direction and in all places all at once. I believe there are spectrums of contributions to the resulting phenotypes about which we are discussing.

As far as the native American example that I gave, the majority of the resulting alcoholic phenotypes WOULD NOT result without the contributions of the predisposing genotype.

With a sizeable percentage of cases of axis I mental illnesses, the pathological phenotype does not occur without precipitating psychosocial stresses. That you need an environmental trigger for the onset of these illnesses makes them no less the diseases that they are. Many cases have no trigger at all. Their induction is spontaneous. The sole contributor to their diseased phenotype is their genotype.

Excessive stress in general can leave one vulnerable to or directly cause disease.

Again, just because it might be necessary for epigenitic factors to contribute to the evolution of pathology does not render that pathology ineligible for the designation "disease".

> > Do you think it has been too much of a stretch?

> Okay... I think that what is most useful here is to look at WHY some people consider it to be a disease and WHY some people don't want it to be a disease.

I was asking the question of you personally. I want to know whether or not YOU consider mental illnesses to be diseases. Which of the following do you NOT consider to be diseases? I don't need to know why. I just want to see where you are at with things.

1. Schizophrenia
2. Schizoaffective disorder
3. Bipolar disorder
4. Major depressive disorder
5. OCD
6. GAD
7. SAD/Social phobia
8. PTSD

I'm going to let personality disorders and addiction remain separate because their etiological dynamics are more complicated. I am not prepared to discuss them in this post. It would require much research and deliberation that I have not performed. On a philosophical level, these things are easier to deliberate. They are all diseases.

As you have said, it will depend on what is the definition of disease as to how to categorize each pathology.

So.

What is your definition of what disease is? (As opposed to what disease is not).

It would also be informative that you perhaps post those definitions you mention that may be found in medical dictionaries or biological dictionaries.

Can a mind be diseased?

I will go back and reread the material you cited. I don't think the concept of disease should be changed by a council with a social agenda. Nor should it be legislated in my opinion. Although appropriately dynamic, it should be based upon the science of the organism and its environment.


- Scott

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Substance Use | Framed

poster:SLS thread:575263
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20051106/msgs/575990.html