![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 30 to 54 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:10
In reply to Re: the brain, posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2006, at 22:22:07
> > > What would the emergent properties of mental illness be?
> > > The behaviour?
> > Yes.
> hmm... i'm not sure how this is emergence in the sense i specified.Well, let's then refer to wikipedia afterall. It is a rather complex - or perhaps complicated is a better term - concept. If you would prefer to use the term "emergent behavior" here as emergence pertains to human behavior, that would be fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_properties
My conclusion that human behavior is an emergent property/behavior of the human organism and human evolution might not be ubiquitious, but I don't see how it is avoidable.
> > > The only way to change emergent properties is to change the lower level properties that realize them.> > > I think we probably do agree. Medication, sure.
> > Why?
> because if i didn't i'd probably lose my lisence.Let us not worry about licenses to lose.
What would you do if you had your choice in treating this psychotically manic family member?
Simple question?
> > > But... I'd be interested to know why the problem emerged at that particular point in time.
> > His girlfriend had broken up with him about two weeks prior. After interviewing her, it seems that he was calling her at all hours of the night for the first week or so. Apparantly, he wasn't sleeping or eating.
> so relationship went pear shaped. i wonder whether therapy might help the person deal with such things...So, then, you would take naked Joe with his rodeo flyers asking what is in his mailbox quoting from Exodus and give him therapy. That is your answer.
> i don't know you are allowed to treat family members... you should probably refer them on... but if money isn't the issue... therapy would probably help i reckon.
THERAPY.
Finally. We have an answer.
You give psychotic manic bipolar I naked Joe therapy.
Hey, that's all I was asking.
To make things really rough on you, Joe goes on to become an ultra-rapid cycler with a period of 11 days; 8 days of severe depression followed by 3 days of mania. To make it easier on you, his 3 days of mania do not give him enough time to develop complex delusions of rodeo showmanship any longer, although messianic religiosity and public nudity are still recurring problems.
Now, about the schizophrenia.
Thanks for the explanation regarding natural kinds.
> > Let's talk about the real schizophrenia. You know, the one with the thought disorder - word salads, hearing voices, delusional paranoia, hallucinations, etc.
> Is that a natural kind?Is that essential for the conversation?
> Are there interesting generalisations that can be made on the basis of those symptoms?
I don't know. These are the things I see when I meet people who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. These are the things I see when I read about the illness of schizophrenia. The people I meet who have the disease and display these symptoms are, to me, quite natural, if uncommon.
So, then, how are we to treat someone with a symptom cluster that includes those that I listed? We don't need to bring up Russia or fetishes anymore, now do we?
Is schizophrenia a biological disorder?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:10
In reply to Re: the brain » Phillipa, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2006, at 2:32:54
>
> Is schizophrenia a biological disorder?
>Oh. I think you answered this sufficiently well in your reply to Phillipa. Thanks.
You think the negative symptomology might represent a natural kind. Is there any chance the same thing might apply to the severe psychomotor retardation seen with certain depressions?
- Scott
Posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:11
In reply to Re: the brain » Phillipa, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2006, at 2:32:54
.........
> So there is a significant problem with saying that abnormal brains cause schizophrenic behaviours / symptoms. The problem is that the majority of people with schizophrenia have normal brains (which is to say brains that fall within the range of normality and their brains can't be differentiated from people without mental illness).
I'm not sure that what they are saying is
abnormal brains *cause* schizophrenic symptoms.
Just as in cases of stroke, after recognizing
a familiar pattern of behaviour (waddling,
one-sided paralysis, etc.), an MRI correlates
those symptoms with what is seen in the brain--
usually a large area of bleeding. To that,
blood tests may be given to corroborate the
dx. Maybe, that is what you mean by multi-dimenisonal?
>
> Though things are more complicated...
>
> More dopamine receptors on autopsy. But once again... *Some* people with schizophrenia not *all* and how many people without schizophrenia have more dopamine receptors on autopsy?It sounds to me like this dopamine exam upon
autopsy is an experimental phase of examination into people who have had hallucinations and
anxiety, and paranoia in their life--who may have beein diagnosed as schizophrenic in their life. I don't think it is a diagnostic endeavour.And btw, did you know that though Kraepelin recognized bipolar disorder as a definite, definable illness, he was sceptical about schizophrenia and speculated about its being in the class of severe anxiety; Most people just call him the father of making a distinction between bp and schizophrenia, and if you read his "Manic Depression Illness and Paranoia"-- it ain't so.
>
> Perhaps the neuroimaging isn't detailed enough... Or perhaps sctuctural / neuro-transmission abnormalities aren't necessary or sufficient for schizophrenia... Or perhaps... Schizophrenia isn't a natural kind."Natural kind" -- sounds like Wittgenstein on
a field trip; what kind of kind is that:=)?
Squiggles
Posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:11
In reply to Re: Leaving the site for a while » Squiggles, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2006, at 2:59:42
> i guess it took a while for the treatments to be developed / made availableMaybe; i think that mistakes are also made,
and in some poor countries, mental illness
is not regarded with the sophistication we have
in the west-- let alone the drugz;
>
> > Drugz are the answer -- unless you are not
> > seriously mentally ill.
>
> so if drugs aren't working then you aren't seriously mentally ill?It could be the wrong drug; this sounds like
a leading question;
> or do you allow that future developments will mean that people who aren't currently being helped by them will be helped by them?Let's hope that better drugs are developed for
mental illness.
>
> you don't think there are serious mental illnesses that can't be helped by drugs as a matter of principle?I don't know. I think that maybe post-traumatic stress may be an example. Soldiers coming back from war, people who have undergone torture, etc. I don't know if all such cases recover or if a mark is left on their psyche for life, that needs treatment. It is possible for a situation to change your brain i think for life. But that would be equivalent to a mental illness from birth wouldn't it?
>
> your thinking is very much in line with Szatz. he maintains that there aren't any such things as mental illnesses. only illnesses of the brain that should be treated with medications.:-) Poor Dr. Szatz - i haven't been very kind with him.
>
> > > Though it is controversial whether psychiatry is best thought of as a medical enterprise.Well, i guess it depends on the psychiatrist.
>
> > Really? Who said it was controversial?
>
> there is controversy. thats what i meant to say.
>
> > Perhaps you are thinking of psychoanalysis?
>
> no, i'm talking about psychiatry. the debate around whether psychiatry is a science like medicine, or whether psychiatry is a form of social control that picks up on norm violations by locking people away and drugging them when they exhibit behaviour that we do not value (like political dissent, expressions of economic hardship, delusions and hallucinations which are revered in other societies etc etc).You're from Mindfreedom aren't you?
>
> > But I take your point that psychiatry is an applied field.
>
> > No. I think it is biology.
>
> i just meant that psychiatry isn't merely descriptive. it doesn't seek solely to classify different kinds of mental illness. in fact... it is a subject of controversy whether the DSM and ICD are scientific taxonomies or not. if there is a science of nosology / classification then it is an infant science indeed. some would scoff at its claim to be attempting a scientific nosology / classification scheme. if whether someone is mentally ill or not is solely an objective matter then nosology / classification can be a scientific enterprise. if whether someone is mentally ill or not depends on value judgement (that the behaviour is harmful or undesirable or unwanted) then it is unclear that nosology / classification can be scientific because science is supposed to be objective and doesn't require value judgements for classification. medicine has been criticised on the same grounds only people aren't locked up and medicated against their will in general medicine, only in psychiatry.I agree that the DSM is a loose guide-- but that
is to its credit, because they don't pretend to be taxonomically precise.
>
> psychiatry is also an applied field (as is medicine) because its aim is the prevention and treatment of mental disorder. those seem to require value judgements of what *should* be prevented and what *should* be treated even if the classification scheme / nosology doesn't require value judgements.Yes, it's not just theoretical. But it is better to practice pharmacology, than to do nothing in the case of severely mentally ill people-- they suffer and others suffer too.
>
> biology isn't an applied field. it seeks to classify and to develop theories that posit underlying causal mechanisms. then one can interveane on the variables to see whether there is a systematic relationship between them. drug trials aren't very good science at times... need double blind tests (how many of those are there?) on decent sample sizes to figure placebo vs other varieties of med vs the drug you are testing. trouble with these studies is the ethics of placebos (or failure to treat). that doesn't arise for biology.Granted.
>
> > As such it is more interested in treatment than in discovering the real nature of illness.Granted.
>
> > That is not because it is "evil" but because
> > there is a long road to travel to understand
> > the causes.
>
> yeah. but someone has gotta do it ;-)
>
> > > I'm not an anti-psychiatry proponent.
>
> > Oh.
>
> i'm interested in providing a unifying theory for psychiatry that will help psychiatry progress as a *scientific* enterprise. i won't say 'just like physics' but maybe 'just like biology' and maybe at times 'just like medicine'. there are many different theoretical orientations (e.g., biomedical, psychoanalytic, behavioural and learning, cognitive, sociological, anthropological, evolutionary psychological, social psychology, humanist and existential etc etc) and i'm interested in how much they fit together and how much they conflict with one another in order to develop a unificatory framework. i'm not anti... i'm trying to help :-) i'm not calling for radical overhaul / revolution i'm trying to assemble the present for a more unified future :-)That sounds like the unified theory of knowledge, lol -- only of the mind. I wouldn't touch that; i would feel safer with an empirical approach.
And it's bound to fall into the hands of the
bureaucrats and then where is the freedom of mentally ill patients?
>
> > > Typically the biological component has been cashed out as people studying the the bio-chemistry and structure of the brain.
> > >
> > > Typically the psychological component has been cashed out as people studying the cognitive deficits that people may exhibit. (Reasoning biases, inability to do certain cognitive tasks, attribution biases etc).
> > >
> > > Typically the sociological component has been cashed out as people studying the difference in prevalence rates for various illnesses across various cultures. Trying to figure out what aspects of culture are relevant for the difference in prevalence rates.
>
> > That sounds like statistics, not psychiatry.
>
> yeah. i provided three methodologies for discovering the nature of mental illness. if we learn more about their nature then that should give us some understanding of causal mechanisms in order for us to develop new interventions however. better treatments. but not just better treatments at the biological level, better treatments at the psychological level as well... people can learn to reason better... interventions at the sociological level as well (pressure for hollywood / fashion to stop presenting people with eating disorders / drug problems as potential role models) etc.I think you are biased against biological psychiatry-- just reading this makes me think that you include biology in mental illness just to make it look fair; but your real interest is in psychology and sociology--which i believe are contexts within which mentally ill people find themselves. Rarely, can you change the person biological state, by changing the context. I think the Soteria project was one attempt, and I just read of the Leros island-- and all i can say is mentally ill people need drugz and human compassion. But the cause remains biological in most cases.
Squiggles
Posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:11
In reply to Re: the brain » alexandra_k, posted by Squiggles on September 24, 2006, at 8:13:38
> And btw, did you know that though Kraepelin recognized bipolar disorder as a definite, definable illness, he was sceptical about schizophrenia and speculated about its being in the class of severe anxiety; Most people just call him the father of making a distinction between bp and schizophrenia, and if you read his "Manic Depression Illness and Paranoia"-- it ain't so.
What ain't so? I'm confused (not such a difficult thing to accomplish).
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:11
In reply to Re: the brain » Squiggles, posted by SLS on September 24, 2006, at 9:01:03
> > And btw, did you know that though Kraepelin recognized bipolar disorder as a definite, definable illness, he was sceptical about schizophrenia and speculated about its being in the class of severe anxiety; Most people just call him the father of making a distinction between bp and schizophrenia, and if you read his "Manic Depression Illness and Paranoia"-- it ain't so.
>
> What ain't so? I'm confused (not such a difficult thing to accomplish).Many sites identify Kraepelin's contribution
as introducing a new categorization in psychiatric
taxonomy and recognizing the distinction between schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness. But infact, in his last chapter on this he seems to place schizophrenia in the larger class of Paranoias (which used to be called dementia praecox - meaning early dementia or dementia at youth).Squiggles
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Jost on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:11
In reply to Re: Leaving the site for a while » alexandra_k, posted by Squiggles on September 24, 2006, at 8:56:50
Thomas Szasz
SZASZ SZASZ please get this right you are driving me crazy because you keep spelling it wrong, and I keep having to figure out how to spell it and that aint easy.
SZASZ:
S * Z * A * S --yes, S, not T, but S * Z
bessides, if you plan to refer to him in your thesis, you'll have to spell it right there, :)
Jost
Posted by Jost on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:11
In reply to Re: the brain » SLS, posted by Squiggles on September 24, 2006, at 9:23:25
Yeah---but then everybody also says that "schizophrenia" used to be called "dementia praecox"-- and if so, maybe he did actually help in the taxonomy of schizophrenia.
I mean, I think everybody says, well, Kraepelin defined schizophrenia, although he called it "dementia praecox."
eg, Columbia Encyclopedia:"Kraepelin...established the clinical pictures of dementia praecox (now known as schizophrenia) in 1893, and of manic-depressive psychosis (see depression) in 1899, after analyzing thousands of case histories."
Jost
Posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:11
In reply to Re: Leaving the site for a while ----alexandra_k, posted by Jost on September 24, 2006, at 10:55:12
> Thomas Szasz
>
> SZASZ SZASZ please get this right you are driving me crazy because you keep spelling it wrong, and I keep having to figure out how to spell it and that aint easy.
>
> SZASZ:
>
> S * Z * A * S --yes, S, not T, but S * Z
>
> bessides, if you plan to refer to him in your thesis, you'll have to spell it right there, :)
>
> Jost
I'm terribly sorry. I apologize Dr. Szasz.If it's any consolation I sometimes misspell
Dr. Shou, sorry Schou.:-)
nothing personal
Squiggles
Posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:12
In reply to Re: the brain » Squiggles, posted by Jost on September 24, 2006, at 11:00:51
> Yeah---but then everybody also says that "schizophrenia" used to be called "dementia praecox"-- and if so, maybe he did actually help in the taxonomy of schizophrenia.
>
> I mean, I think everybody says, well, Kraepelin defined schizophrenia, although he called it "dementia praecox."
>
>
> eg, Columbia Encyclopedia:
>
> "Kraepelin...established the clinical pictures of dementia praecox (now known as schizophrenia) in 1893, and of manic-depressive psychosis (see depression) in 1899, after analyzing thousands of case histories."
>
> JostThey were all dementias at the time -- look at
this interesting article (with links):
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/161/2/381"The authors dramatically describe the appallingly complex diagnostic decisions faced by neuropsychiatrists in Alzheimer’s time, as now: dementia praecox (schizophrenias), dementia agitans (bipolar disorder), dementia paralytica (tertiary syphilis), dementia senilis (arteriosclerosis), and dementia presenilis (p. 81). Alzheimer objectively categorized the problem: which were organic, which functional? After he published his clinicopathological correlations in 1904, four discoveries were made in rapid fire through 1908: Spirochaeta pallidum by a zoologist (Fritz Schaudinn) and a serologist (Erich Hoffmann); the syphilitic origin of general paresis by a psychiatrist (Felix Plaut); a serological test for syphilis by a bacteriologist (August von Wasserman); and "606" (arsphenamine) for treatment by chemists (Paul Erlich and Sahachiro Hata). These multidisciplinary efforts had a major social impact: one-third to one-half of the patients in German mental hospitals and 70% of juveniles were put there by a treatable disease. The only psychiatric events of comparable impact were the discovery sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation that pellagra was a vitamin deficiency, which halved the population of mental hospitals in the southern United States, and the impact on the state hospital system and psychiatric practice of the discovery of neuroleptics, beginning in the 1950s with Rauwolfia serpentina."
Squiggles
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:12
In reply to Re: the brain » Jost, posted by Squiggles on September 24, 2006, at 11:58:03
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh syphylis, a success for psychiatry!then what do they do with it?
they give it back to general medicine.
tut tut, they should have kept it ;-)
Posted by Phillipa on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:12
In reply to Re: the brain » Squiggles, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2006, at 12:33:13
Chronic lyme's disease which is all over the world in different forms also resembles syphylis. It's only by selective blood testing that differention is made. And cerebral spinal fluid crosses as you know the blood brain barrier. And one of the long term problems from lymes is brain related and treated with pschiatric medication once the acute infection is cleared up with an antibiotic that also crosses the blood brain barrier. Not all are capable of this. But damage to the brain is quite common leaving a person with maybe depression. I have chronic lymes but my spinal fluid was clear. But it hides in the organs of the body and at some point as maybe that's really what happened to me it can come out and do more damage. Heart damage and arthritis are frequent results of the infection. Also MS is diagnosed on MRI they ruled that out with me. But again psychiatric meds would be used along with medical drugs. Mental illness can come from many different things and diseases that come from other parts of the body. Spinal menengitis might be another one. Love Phillipa
Posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:12
In reply to Re: the brain » alexandra_k, posted by Phillipa on September 24, 2006, at 19:12:45
What are lymes?
As you probably know Dr. E. Fuller Torrey
has considered the hypothesis of viruses
being responsible for mental illness; and
the medical books are full of disorders
belonging to vitamin deficiencies (e.g.
pellagra), hormonal problems, bacterial
infections, viruses, structural abnormalities,
infections, and on and on, that are responsible
for mental illness. Infact, there are so many
that I have stopped asking why drs. do not
perform "differential diagnoses" as it might
just take a lifetime to find out.I take it that your lyme disease has actually
cured you of a mental disorder? If so, you
have won a diagnostic lottery.Squiggles
Posted by Phillipa on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:12
In reply to Re: the brain » Phillipa, posted by Squiggles on September 24, 2006, at 19:20:29
Squggles I wish. Lymes is a disease transmitted from the deer tick so tiny a speck, from outside in your yard, rodents carry it too. Google lymes' it's very complicated. I just didn't show any spirochettes( the little things that hide in body organs and cause the problems) in my cerebral fluid at the time. No one knows how long or where I got it. It showed up on a freak blood test when I said I'd had a tick. But it wasn't the right type. Love Jan
Posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:12
In reply to Re: the brain » Squiggles, posted by Phillipa on September 24, 2006, at 20:42:57
> Squggles I wish. Lymes is a disease transmitted from the deer tick so tiny a speck, from outside in your yard, rodents carry it too. Google lymes' it's very complicated. I just didn't show any spirochettes( the little things that hide in body organs and cause the problems) in my cerebral fluid at the time. No one knows how long or where I got it. It showed up on a freak blood test when I said I'd had a tick. But it wasn't the right type. Love Jan
How big? Can you see it? What does it look
like without a microscope? You say it can
be seen in the cerebral fluid? You know, i
am so terrified of spinal tap, after that movie,
that i think i would just accommodate the little
buggers. :-)Seriously, are you sure? The drs. said they
found it in the cerebral fluid?Squiggles
Posted by Jost on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:12
In reply to Re: the brain » Phillipa, posted by Squiggles on September 24, 2006, at 19:20:29
Wow E. Torrey Fuller-- the name takes me back...... ah, graduate school.
Gee, he sounds a little... how shall I say this?... a little off his rocker?
He wrote an entire book attacking the evils of Ezra Pound-- which I had to read for my thesis-- I wondered how anyone could keep up the drumbeat of invective, even against someone who was, okay, not exactly the sweetest guy.
So while I still don't know the answer, at least it's he's moved on, so to speak.
Jost
Posted by Phillipa on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:12
In reply to Re: the brain » Phillipa, posted by Squiggles on September 24, 2006, at 20:48:07
Squiggles you didn't google it. It's so small about the head of a pin in size. Anyway no it wasn't in my spinal fluid when they did the lumbar puncture. But before that it could have been. If you google it it shows pics and everything. Love Phillipa
Posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 6:52:49
In reply to Re: the brain » Squiggles, posted by Phillipa on September 24, 2006, at 21:37:02
I went to the images. Interesting--
i have had small circular rings with
raised dots around on my arm, esp. when
i was a kid-- but they are gone. I thought
that was just a temporary viral thing;
also, i do not see any psychiatric symptoms
that would resemble bp in this disease.Squiggles
Posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 8:26:00
In reply to Re: the brain » Phillipa, posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 6:52:49
Was this thread redirected appropriately?
Please see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/688978.html
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on September 25, 2006, at 21:54:37
In reply to Re: the brain - Where does this thread belong?, posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 8:26:00
I wondered the same thing. Surely this isn't social? Love Phillipa
Posted by Lindenblüte on September 25, 2006, at 22:16:39
In reply to Re: the brain » Phillipa, posted by Squiggles on September 25, 2006, at 6:52:49
Okay- Here's a brain condition:
PKU: phenylketoneuria (or something like that)
Basically, it's a very well-studied, well-understood genetic condition. Present from birth, babies are unable to metabolize a particular amino acid (phenylalanine), and so this ordinary amino acid basically acts as a poison in their baby brains, and can cause severe mental retardation and behavioral problems as the primary and most devastating consequences of having a particular gene.
Is it a brain disorder? you betcha!
How is it treated? Well, basically, it's treated through dietary modifications. Prenatal testing for the particular genetic defect will identify babies with PKU and their caregivers will be taught never to give their child phoods with phenylalanine (that's why aspartame has a warning, as do many diet phoods)
PKU is a brilliant example that flouts the traditional "biological illness merits biological treatment" approach. Actually, it's a behavioral change that is required instead. Parents must modify the diet they feed their newborn and learn how to recognize which foods are appropriate or inappropriate. By changing an environmental variable, such as parenting and nourishment, a genetic disease can be thwarted. Today PKU kids grow up with relatively intact health (even though their phood is probably not so tasty).
"Biological based" can mean so many different things
100% genetically determined (like Fragile X mental retardation: but even here there are individual differences!!)
100% genetically determined and <=100% avoidable (like PKU)
some combination of genetic & environmental factors (like Parkinson's Disease, or Stroke, or schizophrenia, or heart disease, cancer, or many other psychiatric/mental illnesses)
Isn't it funny how "stress relief" from social support and supportive relationships can influence positive outcomes for so many different illnesses, ranging from cancer and heart disease to depression?
SLS, I could never know your whole history, nor would I ever presume to know what's best for you- but sometimes a mental illness is a physiological response to something in the environment. If a trained professional can help you recognize what is contributing to this response, and perhaps help you rearrange your environment (or learn to react to it differently), isn't it possible that you may mitigate the severity or frequency of such reactions?
For instance- most people nowadays complain of "stress" but there seem to be so many ways of defining or interpreting or reacting to a stressor. Perhaps a particular combination of stressors in your current situation and your personal history are working together with some genetic or ontogenetic predisposition to push you towards the unhealthy end of the mental illness continuum?
If you cannot identify or realize the connections between the stressors, you may never have a chance to change your reaction to them. That was my perception, at least: *poof* out of nowhere this depression thing was kicking my *ss. I was losing! what the f*ck! well, now I get it. It wasn't a virus, it was a pretty well-learned coping technique that I have always used in traumatic situations. It's just a complete shut-down of emotion and motivation that comes from an overload of chronic anxiety. -- fine-- what causes my anxiety... hmm? difficult question. a lot of unconnected things... oh wait. maybe they're not so unconnected after all. hmm. Well these little insights brought to me courtesy of 5 months of therapy, which I most certainly would not have tolerated without a little help sleeping and eating and thinking provided by some cymbalta, seroquel and provigil.
SLS- I hope you don't take offense at me using you for an example? I sincerely believe that everyone responds differently to different treatments. BUT I also believe that at different stages in our lives we may be ready or receptive to therapy, even if it didn't seem to make any difference earlier. Really truly I just want the best for you, and I'm so sorry that you've been struggling on this end of the pole for so long. It's terrible. Do you like cyber hugs? I'll send you some? Or at the very least, a home-made chocolate cupcake with fudgy truffle frosting.
-Li
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2006, at 22:23:12
In reply to Re: the brain -SLS, posted by Lindenblüte on September 25, 2006, at 22:16:39
> PKU is a brilliant example that flouts the traditional "biological illness merits biological treatment" approach. Actually, it's a behavioral change that is required instead. Parents must modify the diet they feed their newborn and learn how to recognize which foods are appropriate or inappropriate. By changing an environmental variable, such as parenting and nourishment, a genetic disease can be thwarted. Today PKU kids grow up with relatively intact health (even though their phood is probably not so tasty).Yeah, brilliant example, cheers for that.
One question...
Is PKU considered a psychiatric condition or a general medical condition?
Was it ever considered psychiatric do you know?
Posted by Declan on September 26, 2006, at 3:58:05
In reply to Re: thanks! » Lindenblüte, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2006, at 22:23:12
In "The Madness of King George" the King recovers as (or because) he reads something from King Lear, which of course I forget.
But once, I think, it was regarded as a psychiatic illness. Is this the one with blue urine?
Posted by Lindenblüte on September 26, 2006, at 8:11:50
In reply to Re: thanks!, posted by Declan on September 26, 2006, at 3:58:05
I forget the blue urine illness! that's some cool stuff!
:)
-Li
Posted by Lindenblüte on September 26, 2006, at 8:18:19
In reply to Re: thanks! » Lindenblüte, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2006, at 22:23:12
I think PKU is treated as a neurological/general medical condition. The consequences of their metabolic disorder can impact some of the other systems too.
Isn't it funny that the most reliable symptom of my dad's kidneys having a flare-up are confusion and weeping?
Whenever he starts acting all teary and delusional, mom takes him to get his kidneys checked out, and inevitably they are doing a poor job and not filtering out all the crap they need to be filtering out. I'm sure that his entire system would eventually be affected, but it's just that his brain is the most sensitive to fluctuations in whatever...
psychological-neurological-endocrine These are false distinctions. a single cell often plays critical roles in all three "systems". Why shouldn't we expect that talk therapy changes the way the body responds physiologically. Wouldn't it HAVE to, by virtue of changing behavior or thought? (oh... I'll get off my anti-dualist soapbox now)
-Li
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.