![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 44. Go back in thread:
Posted by laima on February 15, 2007, at 18:21:27
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong, posted by Squiggles on February 15, 2007, at 17:12:46
That's a very tragic story. Let's be glad that we're no longer in the middle of the previous century, that we are benefiting from more treatment options and far more nuanced comprehension of mood disorders now than existed then. Maybe in the next century people will look back onto our time like that, too. But there's still a long way to go, and today's rules of thumbs could well be overturned in the future. Yes, definately a field for the best and brightest minds- let's hope they get the funding they need, and aren't wooed or forced into overly simplistic fixes which are easy to sell and fund. Also good we get to exchange information and notes. It can't hurt to be as aware as possible. And still, I think it's better to be doubtful once in awhile than to cling to any ideas or treatments which aren't working out, or to dismiss ideas that could help but aren't immediately attractive. So I still think you are doing alright to be wondering if everything you believe might be wrong- you could be keeping your door open this way.
Posted by Squiggles on February 15, 2007, at 20:01:02
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » Squiggles, posted by laima on February 15, 2007, at 18:21:27
>
> That's a very tragic story. Let's be glad that we're no longer in the middle of the previous century, that we are benefiting from more treatment options and far more nuanced comprehension of mood disorders now than existed then. Maybe in the next century people will look back onto our time like that, too. But there's still a long way to go, and today's rules of thumbs could well be overturned in the future. Yes, definately a field for the best and brightest minds- let's hope they get the funding they need, and aren't wooed or forced into overly simplistic fixes which are easy to sell and fund. Also good we get to exchange information and notes. It can't hurt to be as aware as possible. And still, I think it's better to be doubtful once in awhile than to cling to any ideas or treatments which aren't working out, or to dismiss ideas that could help but aren't immediately attractive. So I still think you are doing alright to be wondering if everything you believe might be wrong- you could be keeping your door open this way.I'm always looking at all the different causes
for mental illness. In studying the history and
the massive collection of research, it's obvious that mental illness can have many diverse causes-- from genetic, to life tragedies, to viruses, to brain damage, to endocrinological diseases... and on; this is what makes it so complex--it is the kind of illness that requires science as well as detective work in a person's life.But the results are always miserable, and i agree with you-- we have more treatment options. I read that on "About" [i think] that on average it takes 8 different medication treatments to arrive at something tolerable-- you just don't get that kind of problem with other illnesses.
Neurology may be our best bet in the future-- if we can actually scan brain disorders and get a parallel picture; alternatively, a panacea-- that's what i like-- a drug that stabilizes all mental disorders of the affective type at least :-).
Squiggles
Posted by munificentexegete on February 15, 2007, at 20:36:50
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong, posted by Squiggles on February 15, 2007, at 20:01:02
> >
> > That's a very tragic story. Let's be glad that we're no longer in the middle of the previous century, that we are benefiting from more treatment options and far more nuanced comprehension of mood disorders now than existed then. Maybe in the next century people will look back onto our time like that, too. But there's still a long way to go, and today's rules of thumbs could well be overturned in the future. Yes, definately a field for the best and brightest minds- let's hope they get the funding they need, and aren't wooed or forced into overly simplistic fixes which are easy to sell and fund. Also good we get to exchange information and notes. It can't hurt to be as aware as possible. And still, I think it's better to be doubtful once in awhile than to cling to any ideas or treatments which aren't working out, or to dismiss ideas that could help but aren't immediately attractive. So I still think you are doing alright to be wondering if everything you believe might be wrong- you could be keeping your door open this way.
>
> I'm always looking at all the different causes
> for mental illness. In studying the history and
> the massive collection of research, it's obvious that mental illness can have many diverse causes-- from genetic, to life tragedies, to viruses, to brain damage, to endocrinological diseases... and on; this is what makes it so complex--it is the kind of illness that requires science as well as detective work in a person's life.
>
> But the results are always miserable, and i agree with you-- we have more treatment options. I read that on "About" [i think] that on average it takes 8 different medication treatments to arrive at something tolerable-- you just don't get that kind of problem with other illnesses.
>
> Neurology may be our best bet in the future-- if we can actually scan brain disorders and get a parallel picture; alternatively, a panacea-- that's what i like-- a drug that stabilizes all mental disorders of the affective type at least :-).
>
> Squiggles
Mental Illness has been the source of much confusion and debate specifically over the last 100 years in particular.In my view Mental Illness can only be a synonym for neurological disease:
Mental = Neurological
Illness = Diseaseit is a term of the vernacular, a layman's version of a medical term, nothing further.
As such Mental Illness exists only when neurological disease is identified in a patient. We can thus distinguish illness from problems in living. If one feels depressed or anxious, one is not ill by default, if one feels scared or even commits a crime, one is not by default ill. If one feels happy and then sad one is not ill by default. If one has an overactive imagination or dresses or speaks esoterically or eccentrically one is not ill by default. Illness of any sort can only be defined by its detectable presence in an individual.
Parkinson's disease is a Mental Illness, it has a pathophysiology being the decay of the dopaminergic system. If we define schizophrenia as an overactivity in the dopaminergic system, then it too would be a Mental Illness. If we define bipolar as the overactivity followed by the under activity of the serotogenic system, then it too becomes a Mental Illness. However, without any pathophysiology schizophrenia and bipolar are meaningless, not mental illness at all, nothing more than metaphoric terms allowing doctors to define the well as diseased.
Redefine them as illnesses by all means, but don't insult our intelligence and expect us to admire the counterfeit.
Posted by Squiggles on February 15, 2007, at 21:05:44
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong, posted by munificentexegete on February 15, 2007, at 20:36:50
Brilliant! I've never seen it put so well.
Thank you.
Squiggles
Posted by lcat10 on February 17, 2007, at 13:36:24
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong, posted by Squiggles on February 15, 2007, at 21:05:44
Did I miss something? Is this thread related to medicaitons for depression?
Posted by Squiggles on February 17, 2007, at 15:01:12
In reply to Re: I'm confused, posted by lcat10 on February 17, 2007, at 13:36:24
Me too; it just seemed to take a detour;
Squiggles
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 18, 2007, at 9:48:11
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong, posted by munificentexegete on February 15, 2007, at 20:36:50
> Mental Illness has been the source of much confusion and debate specifically over the last 100 years in particular.
>
> In my view Mental Illness can only be a synonym for neurological disease:
>
> Mental = Neurological
> Illness = Disease
>
> it is a term of the vernacular, a layman's version of a medical term, nothing further.
>
> As such Mental Illness exists only when neurological disease is identified in a patient.... Illness of any sort can only be defined by its detectable presence in an individual.I much prefer the original Old French meaning for disease, in any case.... from "diseasu", not at peace.
I think you've gone astray from your premise. Detectability is not restricted to e.g. instrumental observations. Illness/disease is still most often detected behaviourally. We "rule out" various potential disorders, rather than verifying one in particular. Moreover, instrumental findings are often found to have provided both false positive and false negative assignments. Neither one precludes disease, but merely our understanding of what disease exists, if any. You are substituting interpretation for raw data observations. It is the difference between knowing something is wrong and what is wrong. There is no a priori requirement to know what is wrong before one can take steps to remedy the discomfort. The nature of the "something wrong" is often enough.
> Parkinson's disease is a Mental Illness, it has a pathophysiology being the decay of the dopaminergic system.
Parkinson's Disease existed, both as a human experience and as a concept, long before we had any knowledge of the pathophysiology. Did it suddenly spring into existence when we discovered the decay in the subtantia negra?
> If we define schizophrenia as an overactivity in the dopaminergic system, then it too would be a Mental Illness. If we define bipolar as the overactivity followed by the under activity of the serotogenic system, then it too becomes a Mental Illness. However, without any pathophysiology schizophrenia and bipolar are meaningless, not mental illness at all, nothing more than metaphoric terms allowing doctors to define the well as diseased.
I don't think a lay person needs to think "dopaminergic" to understand that a schizophrenic is having a different experience of the common reality than they themselves are having. Meanings of words have social components quite apart from their more technical definitions. It is true, most psychological diagnoses are behavioural. That does not invalidate the diagnoses themselves. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> Redefine them as illnesses by all means, but don't insult our intelligence and expect us to admire the counterfeit.
I am indeed concerned about redefinition going on.
I am always struck by one key element in the diagnostic assessment of psychological illness, such as defined in the DSM. It is the presence of phrasing such as "causing marked impairment/distress"....
Now, I know that diagnoses can be imposed upon the unwilling; distress and impairment are subjective. I prefer to see the psych diagnoses as working hypotheses, rather than as constructs with perfect validation. As hypotheses, the existence of exceptions serves to suggest a boundary condition not yet understood very well.
Consider diabetes. There are boundary blood sugar concentrations arbitrarily setting an exclusion/inclusion decision on the exocrine gland disease. Yet, I have no doubt there are people with lower blood sugar concentrations with undoubtable symptoms of the disease, and those above the threshold absolutely oblivious to the condition. And as to treatment, the dose of insulin required, even the type of it, is not found by a priori criteria. It is found by experiment.
I agree with you that we have only a weak and preliminary conceptualization of the relationship between brain tissue and biochemistry and the resultant cognition and behaviour. I also agree that it is unpleasant to be experimented on (a thesis that I infer from your arguments), yet that is all we have. It is all we have ever had.
Lar
Posted by munificentexegete on February 19, 2007, at 4:00:42
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » munificentexegete, posted by Larry Hoover on February 18, 2007, at 9:48:11
>> Parkinson's disease is a Mental Illness, it has a pathophysiology being the decay of the dopaminergic system.
> Parkinson's Disease existed, both as a human experience and as a concept, long before we had any knowledge of the pathophysiology. Did it suddenly spring into existence when we discovered the decay in the subtantia negra?Of course not, however, and this is the crucial part, because it had a physical component to its definition, the “shaky palsy” as it was first coined, it was always going to be possible to at some point discover the pathophysiology behind the disease.
The definition of schizophrenia is such that its pathophysiology can never be identified. It is defined as a subjective not an objective concept on purpose. It is a fraud, a phoney, imaginary, delusional, unscientific, it is an insidious concept. It is a metaphoric term allowing anyone to be defined as seriously ill.
>> If we define schizophrenia as an overactivity in the dopaminergic system, then it too would be a Mental Illness. If we define bipolar as the overactivity followed by the under activity of the serotogenic system, then it too becomes a Mental Illness. However, without any pathophysiology schizophrenia and bipolar are meaningless, not mental illness at all, nothing more than metaphoric terms allowing doctors to define the well as diseased.
> I don't think a lay person needs to think "dopaminergic" to understand that a schizophrenic is having a different experience of the common reality than they themselves are having. Meanings of words have social components quite apart from their more technical definitions. It is true, most psychological diagnoses are behavioural. That does not invalidate the diagnoses themselves. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Schizophrenia is a useless subjective term, one can no more have schizophrenia than have squalemoertosaisa, its a scientific forgery nothing more.
>> Redefine them as illnesses by all means, but don't insult our intelligence and expect us to admire the counterfeit.
> I am indeed concerned about redefinition going on.
Lol, i am merely pointing out where science has given way to permanent subjectivity. Illness is a physical, medical concept, medicine is a science, medical diagnoses need to be supported by physical facts not subjective judgment. Otherwise doctors can go around willy nilly diagnosing everyone ill on a whim, and this is precisely the predicament we find ourselves in. It is not a very comforting thought.
> I am always struck by one key element in the diagnostic assessment of psychological illness, such as defined in the DSM. It is the presence of phrasing such as "causing marked impairment/distress"....
hmmm, psychological illness, sounds like witchcraft, where's the scientific evidence for that? I am not against psychological counselling for problems in living, but there is no proof that psychological problems are illnesses.
> I prefer to see the psych diagnoses as working hypotheses, rather than as constructs with perfect validation.
Lol, hypotheses, where did the science go? You know as well as I that they are designed to be permanent hypotheses and never fact. Shouldn't one have to discover a disease, rather than invent one that can never be discovered?
>As hypotheses, the existence of exceptions serves to suggest a boundary condition not yet understood very well.
Precisely. ; )
> I agree with you that we have only a weak and preliminary conceptualization of the relationship between brain tissue and biochemistry and the resultant cognition and behaviour. I also agree that it is unpleasant to be experimented on (a thesis that I infer from your arguments), yet that is all we have. It is all we have ever had.
I think we have an incredible understanding of how the brain works, the neurosciences are quite literally awe inspiring, just pick up any neurology or even psychiatric textbook to see the true depth of understanding we now have at our disposal. everything from blood tests to high resolution scans to genetic code analysis; medicine applied in a scientific manner is truly a blessing, extending and improving the quality of millions of lives.
Unfortunately I am sad to say that medicine has also constructed concepts like schizophrenia and bipolar. We could wait 10 million years or more, the pathophysiology of schizophrenia will never be elucidated. Those concepts have been specifically designed to enable a doctor to classify anyone as seriously ill and have them held and tortured against their will. They are not bona fide illnesses, they are complete forgeries and will remain so eternally regardless of the level of medical knowledge and expertise.
Posted by laima on February 19, 2007, at 8:54:45
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » Larry Hoover, posted by munificentexegete on February 19, 2007, at 4:00:42
>Unfortunately I am sad to say that medicine has also constructed concepts like schizophrenia and bipolar.
That is so utterly false, it's just about not worth discussing.
Have you ever considered taking an anthropology of medicine class?
Posted by munificentexegete on February 19, 2007, at 15:52:21
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » munificentexegete, posted by laima on February 19, 2007, at 8:54:45
>> Unfortunately I am sad to say that medicine has also constructed concepts like schizophrenia and bipolar.
>
> That is so utterly false, it's just about not worth discussing.you can't discuss it because there is no logically and scientifically sound counter argument. A scientific forgery is just that, there is nothing you can do to legitimize it, in the same way one cannot turn a fake picasso into a real one. However, as I said before they could be redefined as real illnesses, turned into sound originals, but that will never happen. The real insidiousness is in the ability of such metaphoric illnesses to be eternally hypothetical, and to be universally applicable to the entire population on a subjective basis. I have heard the phrase paragon of evility mentioned in this regard.
i am not lambasting medicine in general, I am not lambasting psychiatry, indeed i agree with the medical treatment of bona fide mental illnesses, i am merely pointing out the scientific forgeries created with regard to a particular subset of illnesses, and the insidious effects of such creations.
> Have you ever considered taking an anthropology of medicine class?
I already have a fairly good working knowledge of the origins of schizophrenia and bipolar from bleuler to kraepelin. whether it was invented in 1908, 1902 or last year, it still doesn't make them bona fide illnesses.
Posted by Squiggles on February 19, 2007, at 16:00:52
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » laima, posted by munificentexegete on February 19, 2007, at 15:52:21
Whatever the cause, there are certain mental
states that have identical clusters of symptoms;
those symptoms for practical purposes fall under
the categories of mania, or schizophrenia, or
catatonic depression, or memory loss.You have to have some label to identify the
condition. That's the case with all medical
diseases. As to how accurate or descriptive they are of physical, or social, or transient or permanent brain damage-- that's another matter.Squiggles
Posted by gardenergirl on February 19, 2007, at 16:18:37
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » Larry Hoover, posted by munificentexegete on February 19, 2007, at 4:00:42
> Schizophrenia is a useless subjective term, one can no more have schizophrenia than have squalemoertosaisa, its a scientific forgery nothing more.
> Those concepts have been specifically designed to enable a doctor to classify anyone as seriously ill and have them held and tortured against their will. They are not bona fide illnesses, they are complete forgeries and will remain so eternally... .
Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. Thus, please be sensitive to the feelings of others, particularly those with schizophrenia and/or other mental illnesses. In addition, please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to Psycho-Babble Administration and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action. If you wish, you can appeal this decision to him.
namaste
deputy gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 19, 2007, at 16:33:46
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » Larry Hoover, posted by munificentexegete on February 19, 2007, at 4:00:42
> >> Parkinson's disease is a Mental Illness, it has a pathophysiology being the decay of the dopaminergic system.
>
> > Parkinson's Disease existed, both as a human experience and as a concept, long before we had any knowledge of the pathophysiology. Did it suddenly spring into existence when we discovered the decay in the subtantia negra?
>
> Of course not, however, and this is the crucial part, because it had a physical component to its definition, the “shaky palsy” as it was first coined, it was always going to be possible to at some point discover the pathophysiology behind the disease.Well, that's how little you know about schizophrenia, then. There are distinct pathological changes associated with it (e.g. cortical shrinkage/enlargement of the ventricles), and neurological disturbances such as detriments in smooth pursuit/saccadic eye motions. Your original proposition was that Parkinson's is a mental illness because of pathophysiology. The same is true of schizophrenia, only the changes are more diffuse and delocalized. A prime difference is that Parkinson's affects motor neurons in a unique way, but one might argue a similar disturbance in the visual cortex of a schizophrenic. As you yourself said, it is always possible to discover the pathophysiology behind the disease. We may be slightly further back on the curve with schizophrenia, but the idea that it is purely subjective is quite absurd.
> The definition of schizophrenia is such that its pathophysiology can never be identified.
Not true.
> It is defined as a subjective not an objective concept on purpose. It is a fraud, a phoney, imaginary, delusional, unscientific, it is an insidious concept. It is a metaphoric term allowing anyone to be defined as seriously ill.
There's nothing on purpose about it. Your premise is implausible. You make it sound like a grand conspiracy.
> >> If we define schizophrenia as an overactivity in the dopaminergic system, then it too would be a Mental Illness. If we define bipolar as the overactivity followed by the under activity of the serotogenic system, then it too becomes a Mental Illness. However, without any pathophysiology schizophrenia and bipolar are meaningless, not mental illness at all, nothing more than metaphoric terms allowing doctors to define the well as diseased.
>
> > I don't think a lay person needs to think "dopaminergic" to understand that a schizophrenic is having a different experience of the common reality than they themselves are having. Meanings of words have social components quite apart from their more technical definitions. It is true, most psychological diagnoses are behavioural. That does not invalidate the diagnoses themselves. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>
> Schizophrenia is a useless subjective term, one can no more have schizophrenia than have squalemoertosaisa, its a scientific forgery nothing more.I think I heard you the first time, but I am no more convinced than I was before. "Petitio principii", you are begging the question.
> >> Redefine them as illnesses by all means, but don't insult our intelligence and expect us to admire the counterfeit.
>
> > I am indeed concerned about redefinition going on.
>
> Lol, i am merely pointing out where science has given way to permanent subjectivity. Illness is a physical, medical concept, medicine is a science, medical diagnoses need to be supported by physical facts not subjective judgment.Not so. We were vaccinating against viral illnesses before viruses (I prefer virii, but no one knows Latin any more) were even discovered. As I say, you need not have physical findings before treatment can begin.
> Otherwise doctors can go around willy nilly diagnosing everyone ill on a whim, and this is precisely the predicament we find ourselves in. It is not a very comforting thought.
Who is being diagnosed on a whim? Not me, sir.
> > I am always struck by one key element in the diagnostic assessment of psychological illness, such as defined in the DSM. It is the presence of phrasing such as "causing marked impairment/distress"....
>
> hmmm, psychological illness, sounds like witchcraft, where's the scientific evidence for that?Sounds like a well-established term in modern medicine.
> I am not against psychological counselling for problems in living, but there is no proof that psychological problems are illnesses.
Here we have it. You call it "problems in living". I think it's clear who is inventing concepts.
Psychological counselling.....sounds like witchcraft, don't you think? ;-)
I would like to see you work with an acute paranoid schizophrenic with counselling alone.
> > I prefer to see the psych diagnoses as working hypotheses, rather than as constructs with perfect validation.
>
> Lol, hypotheses, where did the science go?That is science, dude. Ever heard of the scientific method?
> You know as well as I that they are designed to be permanent hypotheses and never fact.
I know nothing of the sort. I totally disagree.
> Shouldn't one have to discover a disease, rather than invent one that can never be discovered?
Another logical fallacy. If A then B, not A not B, is fallacious reasoning.
> >As hypotheses, the existence of exceptions serves to suggest a boundary condition not yet understood very well.
>
> Precisely. ; )That is the scientific method, once again.
> > I agree with you that we have only a weak and preliminary conceptualization of the relationship between brain tissue and biochemistry and the resultant cognition and behaviour. I also agree that it is unpleasant to be experimented on (a thesis that I infer from your arguments), yet that is all we have. It is all we have ever had.
>
> I think we have an incredible understanding of how the brain works, the neurosciences are quite literally awe inspiring, just pick up any neurology or even psychiatric textbook to see the true depth of understanding we now have at our disposal. everything from blood tests to high resolution scans to genetic code analysis; medicine applied in a scientific manner is truly a blessing, extending and improving the quality of millions of lives.We know very little about the brain, dude. Very little. We understand the function of less than 0.001% of the genome. Blood tests for psych conditions other than infection are useless. Scans have only begun to be correlated to cognitive states and function, and are yet exceedingly crude instruments. We can barely image at 10's of magnification, and only on specific substrates. What is the meaning of the correlation between radiolabelled glucose uptake in the cingulate, and mood, precisely? We don't have a clue, dude.
> Unfortunately I am sad to say that medicine has also constructed concepts like schizophrenia and bipolar. We could wait 10 million years or more, the pathophysiology of schizophrenia will never be elucidated.
So, you at least admit there is a pathophysiology of schizophrenia. I would argue that we will know sooner than that. Want to wager $20 on it?
> Those concepts have been specifically designed to enable a doctor to classify anyone as seriously ill and have them held and tortured against their will.
Oh come on! Please be civil to, and about, doctors.
> They are not bona fide illnesses, they are complete forgeries and will remain so eternally regardless of the level of medical knowledge and expertise.
I thought we knew everything already? I'm really having trouble following when it is that we are supposed to know everything, and when it is that we are supposed to know nothing.
Lar
Posted by laima on February 19, 2007, at 17:11:01
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » munificentexegete, posted by Larry Hoover on February 19, 2007, at 16:33:46
I'm actually having trouble comprehending your reasoning and agenda, munificentexegete. I mean, first I read that "most people" here are getting mysterious neurotransmitter tests, when that's clearly not the case. You like science, but "science" doesn't seem to be endorsing the use of such tests in a clinical setting at this time because of lack of practical value. I can't figure out why you seem to be dismissing mainstream, well known diagnoseses such as "manic depression". Mood disorders are not just everyday moods. Now I could understand if you have a theoretical problem with "schizophrenia" not being a useful term, and there is such a debate currently, but unlike the debaters I think of, I think you are saying you plain don't believe that any such condition exists? It exists not just in our culture, but in lots of very varied societies. It's not an invention of any pharmaceutical company, and indeed, doesn't even always fully respond to the available treatments. "Mainstream" in any field certainly tends to be conservative and slow to evolve, but what's important about it is that it's "peer reviewed" , well examined, and accepted. I also don't understand why you would question the value of medication for people for whom it's clearly helping, just because there is no "test" to "prove" any specific condition. I can't help but wonder if you had a bad experience with psychiatry yourself, or if you are just somehow morally against the existence of the very field. Where are you coming from?
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 19, 2007, at 18:13:59
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong)munificentex, posted by laima on February 19, 2007, at 17:11:01
> I'm actually having trouble comprehending your reasoning and agenda, munificentexegete.
Thank you for asking questions, too. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one having problems with this "debate". More like a political speech, methinks. I found myself caught in a vortex.
For example, the argument that psychiatrists and neurologists have much in common.....I would think that would strengthen the scientific support for what psychiatrists do, rather than weaken it. However, one is involved in the science/study of nerves, and the other is literally a doctor of the mind, but more precisely, a doctor of the soul (from Greek: psykhe, soul; iatros, doctor). Giving the latter a grounding in the former is pretty good credibility, methinks.
And, far too much neologia for me. If you make up new words for things, you're making up new meaning. Huxley would be proud.
Lar
Posted by munificentexegete on February 19, 2007, at 18:59:38
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong, posted by Squiggles on February 19, 2007, at 16:00:52
> Whatever the cause, there are certain mental
> states that have identical clusters of symptoms;
> those symptoms for practical purposes fall under
> the categories of mania, or schizophrenia, or
> catatonic depression, or memory loss.
>
> You have to have some label to identify the
> condition. That's the case with all medical
> diseases. As to how accurate or descriptive they are of physical, or social, or transient or permanent brain damage-- that's another matter.
>
> Squiggles
cause isn't an issue.
an illness
defined as a purely
subjective concept
is an arbitrarily imposable
construct allowing anyone
to be defined as ill.a subjective illness
does not objectively
separate the sick
from the well
and therefore
does not define an illness
Posted by laima on February 19, 2007, at 19:12:17
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » Squiggles, posted by munificentexegete on February 19, 2007, at 18:59:38
So, are you positing that there is no such thing as mental illness or disorder because you feel that the concept is a social construct and/or because blood tests are not providing you with the evidence you require? Or, are you trying to say you think "mental illness" is a conspiracy to sell medications? I don't get it.If you doubt any mental illness exists, why would you even suggest blood tests for them in the first place? Somehow, this isn't adding up for me, and yet I don't get the sense that you are struggleing with any paradox or doing any searching in your views.
What do you make of the biological markers for schizophrenia, depression, etc? It's not all clinically useful yet, but markers are being found and people are actively studying them.
Just curious, do you believe in, say, diabetes? Cancer? Infectious diseases?
> cause isn't an issue.
> an illness
> defined as a purely
> subjective concept
> is an arbitrarily imposable
> construct allowing anyone
> to be defined as ill.
>
> a subjective illness
> does not objectively
> separate the sick
> from the well
> and therefore
> does not define an illness
Posted by Squiggles on February 19, 2007, at 19:44:28
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » Squiggles, posted by munificentexegete on February 19, 2007, at 18:59:38
I don't follow this AT ALL.
Could you simplify your message?
Squiggles
> cause isn't an issue.
> an illness
> defined as a purely
> subjective concept
> is an arbitrarily imposable
> construct allowing anyone
> to be defined as ill.
>
> a subjective illness
> does not objectively
> separate the sick
> from the well
> and therefore
> does not define an illness
Posted by laima on February 19, 2007, at 20:02:47
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong, posted by Squiggles on February 19, 2007, at 19:44:28
I'd also like to know, what "defines an illness"? Blood and urine tests? Germs?
Posted by Phillipa on February 19, 2007, at 20:18:08
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong, posted by laima on February 19, 2007, at 20:02:47
End of thread in my opinion only. Maybe it's one of those strange new religious scientologists? Just speculating. Love Phillipa ps apology in advance if I've insulted anyone here.
Posted by Squiggles on February 19, 2007, at 20:29:47
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » laima, posted by Phillipa on February 19, 2007, at 20:18:08
> End of thread in my opinion only. Maybe it's one of those strange new religious scientologists? Just speculating. Love Phillipa ps apology in advance if I've insulted anyone here.
I'm not unhappy to withdraw from this thread.
sweet dreams
Squiggles
Posted by laima on February 19, 2007, at 22:10:54
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong, posted by Squiggles on February 19, 2007, at 20:29:47
Sounds good enough to me, Phillipa and Squiggles.I would just hate to see anyone doubt their successful treatment or the validity of their quest for a successful treatment as result of any part of this discussion, and the very thought of the possibility is upsetting to me. Whatever.
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 20, 2007, at 7:57:07
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » Squiggles, posted by laima on February 19, 2007, at 22:10:54
> I would just hate to see anyone doubt their successful treatment or the validity of their quest for a successful treatment as result of any part of this discussion, and the very thought of the possibility is upsetting to me. Whatever.
No whatever about it. I was very troubled by the same thoughts. Well said.
Lar
Posted by laima on February 20, 2007, at 9:40:57
In reply to Re: Everything I believe may be wrong » laima, posted by Larry Hoover on February 20, 2007, at 7:57:07
Thank you, Larry.
Actually, I was wondering if I was the only one with this particular concern, as I didn't see where anyone else brought it up, if they even did. I've gotten a very broad anti-psychiatry vibe from much of this "discussion", almost as if there is some unspoken agenda along with it, and this doesn't seem to be the appropriate forum for that. Is there a motive to convince people that they have no conditions in need of treatment, as their diagnosises are imaginary? Are the manifestations imaginary? Well, I must be feeling paranoid and defensive to read this sort of stuff between the lines. After all, still waiting for an explanaition and elaboration to clear up the confusion.
Yes, lots of people share concerns about particular medications and other situations, but they usually discuss or at least mention why they believe what they do, allowing others to assess the information for themselves, do further research if they wish. Lots of people post innacurate info, in error or for whatever reason, but usually a discussion can follow to try to untangle the real story. That's different from presenting opinion as fact, no references or clues as to where the info came from. One can be very cynical about drug companies, the health care system, etc., while still acknowleding their value, or at the least, the existence of a person's symptoms. Very different from blanketly dismissing all of "psychiatry" as an invalid field, if I am comprehending the comments accurately and that's what's going on. And if dismissing "psychiatry" and diagnosises- why post here at all? What motivates that? A desire to share warnings based on personal experience? Or an idiological stance, say, with a practical component of turning people away from psychiatry and treatment? Is there a component of demonstrating that treatments are ridiculous and based on flim-flam? THAT unanswered question, about motivation, makes me feel very concerned, suspicious even. Without any explanaition, I find myself really wondering how to fill in the gaps and make sense of the inconsistencies.
> > I would just hate to see anyone doubt their successful treatment or the validity of their quest for a successful treatment as result of any part of this discussion, and the very thought of the possibility is upsetting to me. Whatever.
>
> No whatever about it. I was very troubled by the same thoughts. Well said.
>
> Lar
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 24, 2007, at 11:11:06
In reply to Please be sensitive » munificentexegete, posted by gardenergirl on February 19, 2007, at 16:18:37
> Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for a week instead, since the idea here is not to change your posting name without following these steps:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#names
After this week, please either return to your previous one (you can email me if you don't remember your password) or switch (following the above steps) to another new one. Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.