Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Hektore · 03-10-2010, 05:00 AM

Now this is from a piece titled 'Psychiatry: An Industry of Death', which I recognize as a ridiculously over-the-top piece of propaganda. But, I think there is something to this. Psychologists and psychiatrists (hereafter: psychiatrists) are treated by many with the same respect given to physicians. Should that be the case?

For those who don't know, the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a book used by psychiatrists to classify mental illness. It contains a list of all recognized mental illnesses and the criteria used for diagnosing them in an individual. The basis for inclusion in the book however is by vote. By vote. Also, there is a great deal of overlap between diseases, and the same symptom set can be diagnosed many different ways by many different psychiatrists. Doesn't this seem uncomfortably fallible to you? It does to me.

Then, there is the lack of pathology. I'm not opposed to the idea that a person can have abnormal brain functions or chemistry that disrupt their emotional state or well being. I also recognize that the area of body we're talking about is the brain, and you can't just biopsy a person's brain, the risk is incredibly high and I don't think enough is known to be able to test functionality of a brain biopsy ex situ. That's the rub though, Psychiatrists are making claims about the way that a person's brain is functioning, without any diagnostic, only a manifestation of symptoms. They also prescribe medication based on their assumptions about an individuals brain chemistry.

I wouldn't be so crass as to suggest that mental illness does not exist. However, at what point does 'not normal' cross the line into 'illness'? I have heard it said that it's based on functionality, but any degree of any mental characteristic affects functionality. 'Normally' functioning individuals have mental characteristics that affect them negatively. How functionally deficient does a person have to be to be mentally ill?

Abstract of questions:
Are you comfortable with the DSM and it's use?
At what point does 'not normal' Cross the line into mental illness?
How functionally deficient does a person have to be to be considered mentally ill?
Do psychiatrists and psychologists deserve the same level of respect as physicians and other health care providers?

Until I have very good answers to some of these questions, I don't think I can take this field as seriously as the rest of 'medicine'. I also find it a bit absurd that these folks can have others committed indefinitely against their will with state support, or that they can affect criminal sentencing and cases so much.

03-10-2010, 05:00 AM	#1 (permalink)
Hektore Junkie Location: Greater Harrisburg Area	Psychology, Psychiatry & Mental Illness Now this is from a piece titled 'Psychiatry: An Industry of Death', which I recognize as a ridiculously over-the-top piece of propaganda. But, I think there is something to this. Psychologists and psychiatrists (hereafter: psychiatrists) are treated by many with the same respect given to physicians. Should that be the case? For those who don't know, the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a book used by psychiatrists to classify mental illness. It contains a list of all recognized mental illnesses and the criteria used for diagnosing them in an individual. The basis for inclusion in the book however is by vote. By vote. Also, there is a great deal of overlap between diseases, and the same symptom set can be diagnosed many different ways by many different psychiatrists. Doesn't this seem uncomfortably fallible to you? It does to me. Then, there is the lack of pathology. I'm not opposed to the idea that a person can have abnormal brain functions or chemistry that disrupt their emotional state or well being. I also recognize that the area of body we're talking about is the brain, and you can't just biopsy a person's brain, the risk is incredibly high and I don't think enough is known to be able to test functionality of a brain biopsy ex situ. That's the rub though, Psychiatrists are making claims about the way that a person's brain is functioning, without any diagnostic, only a manifestation of symptoms. They also prescribe medication based on their assumptions about an individuals brain chemistry. I wouldn't be so crass as to suggest that mental illness does not exist. However, at what point does 'not normal' cross the line into 'illness'? I have heard it said that it's based on functionality, but any degree of any mental characteristic affects functionality. 'Normally' functioning individuals have mental characteristics that affect them negatively. How functionally deficient does a person have to be to be mentally ill? Abstract of questions: Are you comfortable with the DSM and it's use? At what point does 'not normal' Cross the line into mental illness? How functionally deficient does a person have to be to be considered mentally ill? Do psychiatrists and psychologists deserve the same level of respect as physicians and other health care providers? Until I have very good answers to some of these questions, I don't think I can take this field as seriously as the rest of 'medicine'. I also find it a bit absurd that these folks can have others committed indefinitely against their will with state support, or that they can affect criminal sentencing and cases so much. __________________ The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.