Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Psychiatrists Cast Doubt On Biomedical Model of Mental Illness

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the wrong-thinking dept.

Medicine 329

jones_supa writes "British Psychological Society's division of clinical psychology (DCP) will on Monday issue a statement declaring that, given the lack of evidence, it is time for a 'paradigm shift' in how the issues of mental health are understood. According to their claim, there is no scientific evidence that psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are valid or useful. The statement effectively casts doubt on psychiatry's predominantly biomedical model of mental distress – the idea that people are suffering from illnesses that are treatable by doctors using drugs. The DCP said its decision to speak out 'reflects fundamental concerns about the development, personal impact and core assumptions of the (diagnosis) systems', used by psychiatry. The provocative statement by the DCP has been timed to come out shortly before the release of DSM-5, the fifth edition of the American Psychiatry Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The manual has been attacked for expanding the range of mental health issues that are classified as disorders."

cancel ×

329 comments

Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (1)

smaddox (928261) | about a year ago | (#43703311)

Would most people be better off undiagnosed? When it comes to mental "illness", often the only (or at least the best) treatments are behavioral therapy, in which the "illness" is trained away.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about a year ago | (#43703351)

And medications are rarely, or at least are supposed to only be rarely, the only prescribed treatment, usually initially medication and behavioral therapy, medication being largely used to aid behavioral treatment at the start, unless I am mistaken.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (5, Interesting)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about a year ago | (#43703645)

Would be nice if true. Fact of the matter is most people get 15 minutes, a prescription, and sent home.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (2)

macraig (621737) | about a year ago | (#43703981)

If you got 15 minutes you were lucky. I got ten, a scrip, and a followup cancelled by the doctor.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (4, Funny)

PNutts (199112) | about a year ago | (#43703379)

Would most people be better off undiagnosed? When it comes to mental "illness", often the only (or at least the best) treatments are behavioral therapy, in which the "illness" is trained away.

I agree. And so do I.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704101)

Fun fact: In religious schizophrenia, "God"/"Jesus" is the alter ego second personality. ^^

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (1)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about a year ago | (#43703383)

The problem being that most patients are most likely not being diagnosed accurately and thus being medicated inappropriately or over-medicated instead of another proper treatment, which might be why the Society decided to reverse course. So, with the choice of a majority being mis-diagnosed versus a minority correctly diagnosed, the less harmful answer is to reduce the number of diagnosis being done. And more importantly, limit diagnose under strict situations and conditions, which looks like what they wish to promote.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (5, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | about a year ago | (#43703803)

A diagnosis may also be less useful when the problem is a natural reaction to a social environmental situation and lead to attempting to 'cure' the patient rather than fix the problems causing the reaction. Trying to treat of depression or anxiety caused by stress with long term use of medications is likely to lead to eventual failure of the medication or in the case of anti-anxiety drugs lead to addiction and problems from that, leaving the patient in an even worse situation than before.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703391)

Would most people be better off undiagnosed?

In a word, yes. Since "most people" would not be ill, neither physically nor mentally. This new edition of the DSM risks to change that, as in it provides a convenient way to slap "diagnostic" labels on quite a few people who're today considered pretty much normal.

Cue the observation occasionally voiced that what today is called "ADD" (and but yesterday called "ADHD") and results in prescriptions of ritalin, only a few short decades ago was called "being a kid". We are going a little bonkers with the mental, yes.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (5, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year ago | (#43703521)

But with more people being diagnosed as mentally ill, and thus more people receiving prescription medicines, the profit margins of Big Pharma (tm) will only go up!

Will no one think of the major pharmaceutical companies?

I don't think its a vast conspiracy, so much as generations of doctors being educated that drugs are the solution to mental problems, and that all mental illness can be treated by some drug treatment. Also this wacky idea that we all have to match some theoretical norm of some sort. "When all you have is a hammer..." etc.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43703621)

How about another way of looking at things: These are devastating illnesses. Non medical treatment hasn't been shown to be terribly effective. What the hell else do you do?

While I'm one of the first people to dump on Big Pharma, we've gone to a biopsychosocial model because chaining people up in asylums and beating them just didn't get the job done. The brain is clearly chemical in nature and at some point reductionist medication SHOULD point the way to detailed understanding and treatment. We just aren't there now. Doesn't surprise anyone in the field. We use the SAME drugs for many "different" diseases. How's that supposed to work?

Yes, by limiting discussion to just a certain framework of diseases you can inappropriately narrow thinking and treatment. You can make it so that it's hard to come up with a different paradigm.

The DSM was the first attempt to come up with a reasonable framework and language. It's not very accurate but you have to start somewhere. Everyone is open to suggestions.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (2)

ocamsrazor (228566) | about a year ago | (#43703761)

The principle of first do no harm comes into play. If someone in a position of medical authority is going to offer you a treatment we need good evidence that the benefits of that treatment outweigh the harms.

This is almost impossible to do if the very definitions you have of mental illness aren't meaningful. And the evidence that backs the DSM is very very weak.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (3, Interesting)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#43704043)

Psychiatrists take the Hippocratic oath? Considering their treatments and "remedies" they don't seem very good at upholding it.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703849)

The brain is not just chemical in nature. Many of the important properties of the brain come from the physical arrangement of neurons. If the neurons are connected in the wrong way, you can't fix that by bathing the entire brain in some chemical, so there are almost certainly problems that can occur in the brain that cannot be fixed by just administering a medication.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43703941)

Still, seeing a symptom and treating it with a drug, skipping "thinking", probably misses an enormous chunk that needs to be built back into the model.

Freud-type stuff has been largely shot down, but the brain, when thinking, builds and reinforces thought and memory pathways. If the thinking thinks odd things, it's going to reinforce odd things. What's the mental problem rate of farmers working all day keeping their brain busy vs. poorly-employed people sitting around brooding all day?

Brooding, thinking, builds and reinforces memories and thinking. Any model of "mental symptom + drugs" completely skips that mechanism.

BTW, I have no idea if that's what this group of psychologists (not psychiatrists) is suggesting, but that's what I'd suggest.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704089)

What the hell else do you do?

Perform rain dances, give herbal infusions, whack'em over the head until problem solved. There are so many things to try. And yes, psychiatry has tried quite a few, beyond figuring out the right pill for exactly your condition.

Note that electroshock, insulin shock, even lobotomy were not exactly subtle, nor were they much based on evidence, even where the patients were patently being used as lab rats. But they're certainly other things that've been tried and shown to be a bad idea, the hard way. Yay for psychiatic advancement!

The brain is clearly chemical in nature [...]

Also electrical, and we have devices to look at your thoughts as you're thinking them. Also pretty much terra incognita as to how awareness follows from this and just what the heck is really wrong with you when you're hearing voices or whatever.

[...] and at some point reductionist medication SHOULD point the way to detailed understanding and treatment.

Psychiatric medicine is still pretty much in the "poke and see what happens" stage. It may well be that the reductionist approach may prove horribly unable to deal with, or even usefully discern, what is actually going on. Too bad that holistic approaches are still considered witchery or part of the occult or whatever, if they're thinking about that sort of thing at all.

The a priori and pervasive assumption is that there's something obvious their "science" can "see" and that there is going to be a set answer for each and every enumerable condition. You just gotta enumerate them all.

That may not be true. Seeing the lack of progress regardless of how they gerrymander their categories..., well, I'm glad I'm not a pshrink and also that I don't need one. *shudder*

Everyone is open to suggestions.

If only that were true. Instead, various institutions and insurers are taking this thing and making it their grail. That is not "being open to suggestions". At all.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43703655)

It's a pretty crappy headline. My apologies for the length and tangential nature of this post. This is a very personal subject for me.

The problem is that we really don't have a decent understanding of the brain (or its abnormalities) at all. We have collections of symptoms appearing in varying severities with varying results, and we have treatments that alter those symptoms. As far as medicine goes, that's really about it.

The problem with a diagnosis is that it's a label. Someone who says "I'm bipolar" can expect that every action will be judged harshly as to whether it's actually their intended "normal" action, or the manifestation of their depression or mania, whichever happens to be the case that day (or hour). A child who's inattentive in school may just be bored, but the diagnosis of ADD opens the door to differently-structured classes that may help - as well as opening the door to ridicule for being different. Sometimes, yes, it's better to stay undiagnosed, and sometimes it's better to get the diagnosis and do nothing with it.

On the other hand, diagnosis is necessary for any treatment. Someone can understand "I'm sad all the time, and don't like it", but without the term "depression", it's very difficult to find information about how to improve. I've met several people who, in the 90's when depression was highly stigmatized, had traumatic experiences that they couldn't talk about and couldn't do anything to recover from, partly because they wouldn't consider the possibility of actually being "depressed".

To make matters worse, there are still an enormous number of people who simply deny the existence of any mental illness. They assume that kids with ADHD are just being active children, or people with depression are just sad, or people with bipolar disorder are just moody. The illness isn't what's visible from the outside, though. The illness is what's happening in the brain to cause the outward symptoms. The ADHD child can't calm down and focus - his mind always jumps to doing something else. The depressed people can't cheer up - even happy times are often plagued by a sadness that's always present in their minds. The bipolar person can't control their mood - the emotions are overwhelming.

What's happening now, albeit slowly, is that the stigma is being countered by awareness programs. This story is in a similar vein to the one a few days ago [slashdot.org] decrying DSM-5 for not being valid regarding mental health. As our understanding and openness about mental illness improves, we're starting to recognize that typical Western medicine may have done some serious harm to our society. A recent Broadway musical [wikipedia.org] explored this question well.

In next to normal, a woman who grieved four months for a dead child was diagnosed as "depressed", and began 16 years of treatment. One of the questions explored is whether her illness was really because of the loss, or whether it was because of the trauma of ongoing treatment. There is no answer. There is no happy ending. There's only the promise of a next-to-normal life, where everything is perfect except for when it isn't, and there's always some new treatment to try.

That's the ongoing problem with our current handling of mental illness. We have collections of symptoms, and drugs that treat them, but we don't really understand how. The DSM-5 is so vague and imprecise that a particular symptom is painted with a wide brush to be a whole set of disorders. With no testing for suitability, medications are tried that aren't fully understood, in the hope that it's the right drug to set everything right quickly. When it doesn't work, another regimen is proposed, also with little or no testing for suitability. As the patient's treatment drags on, whole classes of drugs are ruled out for their side effects, then brought back because they were better than alternatives.

What would be better is to avoid diagnosis labels (or use only more specific labels) until we can understand and test for the neurological conditions that lead to the symptoms of mental illness. We could differentiate "depression due to low $HORMONE" from "depression due to physically-damaged $STRUCTURE", and "low levels of $CHEMICAL" from "high levels of $OPPOSITE_CHEMICAL". From there, drug treatment can be centered on solving specific problems, rather than just brutally shoving the mind in a particular direction. Once the underlying neurology is a bit closer to "fixed", therapy can be more effective at helping the patient cope with their chronic condition.

Nobody's perfect. All we can do is help people get a little closer, until they can be satisfied with their next-to-normal lives. The DSM-5 doesn't help that as well as it could, so mental-health professionals are avoiding it.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703663)

Would most people be better off undiagnosed? When it comes to mental "illness", often the only (or at least the best) treatments are behavioral therapy, in which the "illness" is trained away.

[anecdote ahead]

Well, I am currently on lithium, and it has helped me more than the CBT ever did. How do I know? I haven't tried to kill myself in a very long time. I haven't even given it serious thought. IT is the emotional life equivalent of watching widescreen movies on 4:3. The worst ups and worst downs simply are no more. (I blatantly stole this quote from someone)

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43703769)

There are a few things that should be taken into account, specially regarding other, more physical medicine fields like the placebo and nocebo effects that could be triggered by the treatment or diagnosis, and the tendency on overmedicating that is having medicine now. Probably in overall is doing more damage than good right now as it is being used. As any tool, it should not be misused, only used where really is needed.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703793)

I'd bet that these new "disorders" in the DSM-5 will allow the government to detain lots more innocent but "undesirable" people.

American Psychiatry has always been a joke. Why not bring back a list of nonsense questions to determine if someone is sane?

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703827)

You will never train a illness away all by itself. That's not how neural networks work. I've cured illnesses both in humans and in simulated models. Forever. In a matter of days or at most a month So I am one of the experts in the field of modern applied neuropsychology.

In simple words:

A behavioral therapy only actually works, if it is preceded by a intensive (primal) depth therapy. As otherwise you don't know the actual causes and are always treating symptoms or intermediate causes, and the deeper mis-associations in the brain just find new outlets. It cannot possibly work. But it can look like it for a few years, until everything becomes much much worse. Because every time you do such a unguided behavioral therapy, you weaken the neural links that enable you to still remember and hence process/fix the old damage. Meaning you will have weird unwanted behavior, without the ability to ever fix it anymore. The mother of all repression. And that is a nightmare scenario. Your behavior therapy... it will do nothing.

You first need to find the actual causes. And newsflash: You ain't ever gonna do that with just talking to someone. In fact talking actively prevents your emotions (neural feedback loops) from growing. But you absolutely need intense experiences/feelings (the older you are, the more intense), since otherwise the weak neural links to the repressed areas will never be triggered, and so you won't be able to remember them.

The guided depth (primal) therapy is only there to help you remember. It itself neither can ever fix anything. But it enables to tell the behavioral therapy what to actually fix. Without it, you are blind and do more damage than good.

Finally: Stop putting "illness" it in quotes as if it's "not real", you asshole, this is not the dark ages, and just because *you* can't "see" physical scars doesn't mean they are not there or not measurable! I worked with people who did show that it triggers the exact same pain centers, and that even some painkillers work against the symptoms! Which was always obvious if you actually understood your neurology.
Yeah... totally "not real"... It's people like you, stuck in the dark ages, that make (neuro-)psychotherapy such an uphill battle!

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703851)

The use of quotes around illness suggests you've never experienced it or dealt with those affected. Thanks so much for belittling a serious problem.

Re:Would most people be better off undiagnosed? (3, Interesting)

Guppy (12314) | about a year ago | (#43703897)

When it comes to mental "illness", often the only (or at least the best) treatments are behavioral therapy, in which the "illness" is trained away.

For mild forms of mental illness (bearing in mind that what we call "mild" mental illness can be crippling and painful from the perspective of the individual), perhaps. I'm not sure I agree with the way you phrase your position, but it is at least a valid position.

But behavioral therapy supposes that patient has enough function to engage with the therapist; even in the days before neuroleptics, it was recognized that some forms of mental illness did not respond well to talk therapy. A severely disorganized schizophrenic will turn even the simplest statements into jumbled hash; a catatonic depressive might not have sufficient volition to even reply.

Therapy is pretty advanced when dealing with patients who can't function enough to take care of their basic survival needs -- I'm not talking about acceptance of particular choices or values (by society or by self), or even whether they fit in well enough to hold a job. Rather, individuals rendered unable to attend to basic functions like "avoid freezing to death in winter" or "obtain and prepare sufficient food to maintain life, without endangering others". In such cases it is often a useful adjunct, but supposes that the patient can improve enough to be establish some level of meaningful communication.

yet another case of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703313)

...if you don't have a clue, what you are talking about, just STFU.

s/Psychiatrists/PSYCHOLOGISTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703315)

Slashdot can't even get the title correct.

Re:s/Psychiatrists/PSYCHOLOGISTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703863)

Before you jump in to correct someone, you ought to look it up. A psychiatrist is someone who practices medicine and a psychologist studies mental processes. It's analogous to the difference between a doctor and a biologist; while a psychiatrist knows about psychology, a psychologist isn't licensed to treat patients just as a drug researcher can't prescribe medication.

Re:s/Psychiatrists/PSYCHOLOGISTS (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#43704073)

A psychologist can't get you locked up for life with no possibility of release based on a dodgy "assessment" that doesn't require an independent review.

Re:s/Psychiatrists/PSYCHOLOGISTS (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#43704119)

Psychologists have PhDs. Some of them treat patients, These are called Clinical Psychologists.

Psychiatrists have MDs. So do general practitioners, and in many cases psychiatric drugs are prescribed by non-specialists.

That's crazy. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703321)

Let's just go back to drilling holes.

Re:That's crazy. (0)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#43704121)

Let's just go back to drilling holes.

That's just being cruel! Modern technology has made drilling holes unnecessary. Newer adhesives can attach the electrodes to the head while you give the electric shock.

You don't need to drill holes and poke the electrodes into the brain any more before shocking.

What, then, will they call my overwhelming fear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703329)

...of disclosing my identity?!?

Re:What, then, will they call my overwhelming fear (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#43703381)

If I was in the doctor's chair I'd call it an unfortunate case of "justified".

Re:What, then, will they call my overwhelming fear (2)

colinrichardday (768814) | about a year ago | (#43703393)

Slashdotitis?

Car Analogy (5, Insightful)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43703331)

If mechanics understood cars as well as we understand brains, then dealing with car problems might work like this:
After having cut apart and ground up thousands of working and non-working cars, mechanics would know that a lack of gasoline, oil, or water was a common factor in many common car failures. Thus, whenever a broken car was brought into their shop, they'd pop open the hood and pour a bucket of gasoline, oil, or water over everything (depending on the symptoms) to try and fix the problem.

Re:Car Analogy (2)

bkmoore (1910118) | about a year ago | (#43703543)

then hook jumper cables to the bonnet and apply voltage until something burns.

Re:Car Analogy (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43703631)

You forgot WD-40 (although you could argue that it really is a mix of gasoline, oil and water).

Re:Car Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703699)

How can there be water in something designed to repel water?

What? (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about a year ago | (#43703333)

Jesus, and how long ago were predominately PSYCHOLOGICAL models being attacked?

Re:What? (3, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#43703419)

About three hours? It's currently 3:30 on the east coast of North America so everybody there is still daydreaming off the lunch stupor. The Europeans are home from work or sleeping, and the west coasters are high so they're not attacking anything.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703841)

Greetings, my child,
I'm glad to hear you call out to me in your time of questioning, but I'm unfortunately not an expert on the recent history of debates over the mechanisms for neurological disorders. Not quite sure why this particular question is being addressed to me? Then again, I do get a lot of very strange requests.
Love,
--Jesus

DSM-5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703341)

That manual of disorders is basically a very long list enumerating "everything" that could be wrong with you, according to psychiatrists. And this latest version is shuffling the boxes and categories around a lot, removing some, adding a bunch, and in the main the whole thing expands to encompass quite a bit of what we consider normal behaviour, too.

What they base it all on? I have no idea. Apparently someone noticed that the emperor is actually nekkid. A particularly telling blow since that manual governs quite a bit including what does and what does not get paid for by health insurance. In countries with (compulsory) national health insurance, that can have quite the impact.

Not that I mind much. From relatives in the health industry I had already gathered that DSM-5 was a bad idea done badly.

Re:DSM-5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703669)

That manual of disorders is basically a very long list enumerating "everything" that could be wrong with you, according to psychiatrists.

"wrong" should be in quotes. Homosexuality was a "mental illness" not too long ago.

But if someone is hearing voices that aren't there, something is very wrong.

And if someone feels compelled to harm themselves or others, then something else is very wrong.

Brain science is in its infancy and I think the medical community should really look at its assumptions and beliefs. For decades we were told that whatever brain cells you have, that's it for the rest of your life. That's what the medical community believed based upon very little evidence.Then neurogenesis was discovered not too long ago - in adult humans.

I think it's about time the psychiatry started some examination of their own profession and their own beliefs.

I hope they can figure out what are true illnesses and what are just labels for folks that are considered "odd".

When your poor, you're are nutty: when you're rich; it's called "eccentric".

When you're poor, you're called an asshole. When you're rich; you're called forceful and driven.

Replacement needed (4, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43703345)

If they want a replacement they will need to provide one. Until then, people are being treated, with varying degrees of success, with the current model. Even if the model isn't actually an accurate description of what is going on, it is still a fairly useful guide to approaching the problems. Sort of like classical physics versus relativity. A real breakthrough in understanding would be great - and maybe with all of the brain imaging and various other things going on, that will emerge. But so far it seems to mainly be individual studies that aren't producing a cohesive theory or useful guide to treatment. They will need to find their equivalents of Einstein and Dirac.

Another problem with the recent releases of the DSM is that what is considered a disorder sometimes seems to be a question of politics or political correctness.

Re:Replacement needed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703371)

If they want a replacement they will need to provide one.

Pardon me for pointing out that DSM-5 is the replacement. Currently they're using DSM-IV, which is a lot smaller.

The larger point, exposed by this "update", is that the categories are essentially arbitrary and apparently not based on anything falsifiable, ie not anything resembling science.

Another problem with the recent releases of the DSM is that what is considered a disorder sometimes seems to be a question of politics or political correctness.

That would seem to be a bit of a problem, no?

Re:Replacement needed (4, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43703623)

Pardon me for pointing out that DSM-5 is the replacement. Currently they're using DSM-IV, which is a lot smaller.

The larger point, exposed by this "update", is that the categories are essentially arbitrary and apparently not based on anything falsifiable, ie not anything resembling science.

Yes, I know. That is why it need to be replaced, preferably with something systematic, as indicated above.

As it stands, brain imaging can identify psychopaths [reuters.com] , and is showing useful things about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [sfgate.com] . I expect there will be more to come in that regard. Then there is also the fascinating feedback that can occur between behavior and brain function and activity. Good and bad behavior can become self-reinforcing. Then there is the role of nutrition [usda.gov] in various aspects of brain function and behavior. Biochemistry is continuing to provide new insights, and new approaches. We are continuing to learn important lessons about something so seemingly common as sleep [wsj.com] and its disorders that effect people's memory, attention, and behavior. Even classic psychology and psychiatry have insights that will have to be considered. It all plays a part. On the other hand, in a lot of ways it seems like we are still groping in the dark there is so much to learn. One thing seems likely to me is we are likely to find more conditions that will end up requiring a multidisciplinary approach to treat.

Another interesting question will come when various aberrant behaviors are scientifically identified as such, but they end up being politically protected in either the scientific community, or the political establishment.

Choices, choices.

Re:Replacement needed (1)

ocamsrazor (228566) | about a year ago | (#43703807)

Psychopathy is a complicated social phenomena. It's not something that can be reduced to a simple correlation with the shapes of the structure of someone's brain.

Not to mention that brain imaging is incredibly limited in what it can tell you and a huge amount of the published science that uses it is pretty terrible quality.

I'll really never understand the appeal of this reductive nonsense.

Re:Replacement needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703409)

"people are being treated, with varying degrees of success"

Lobotomy, shock therapy, LSD... varying degrees to be sure.

Re:Replacement needed (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43703417)

Which model? After all we wouldn't want to break the psychiatrist's business model, would we.

Re:Replacement needed (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#43703491)

Even if the model isn't actually an accurate description of what is going on, it is still a fairly useful guide to approaching the problems.

Some operating thetans might disagree.

Re:Replacement needed (0)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#43703795)

Funny.

Replacement available (3, Insightful)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#43703889)

Mental health is a large subject, let's take a smaller slice for discussion: depression.

Depression meds work no better than placebo [thedailybeast.com] . Depression meds have lots of unpleasant side-effects, so being treated for depression is - on average - worse than going undiagnosed.

Depression is a symptom of many diseases - at least 18 of them commonplace. Many cases of depression are the result of 1) underactive thyroid (40% by one accounting), 2) Low levels of vitamin D [mayoclinic.com] , and 3) sleep apnea [wikipedia.org] .

And yet, the symptom is treated as a disease in and of itself. Prescription meds which do more harm than good are commonly prescribed under the flimsiest of circumstances:

Patient: "doctor, I feel tired and run down"

Doctor: "It sounds like depression. Try this and see if it goes away".

After all is said and done, a casual reading of the research would suggest that the scientific method used in psychology research is crap. That's a strong statement, but not completely without merit.

Psychiatrists need to stop worrying about publishing the next trivial follow-on paper, and need to stop theorizing by making up stories. Get your evidence first, make theories to explain the evidence, and then throw out theories which have no testable predictions.

Go back to basics, and stop making money from giving people false hope through increased suffering.

(Grrr! A close friend got chewed up and spit out by the medical profession because of depression.)

Could be (1)

UK Boz (755972) | about a year ago | (#43703349)

Some people are just evil..

Re:Could be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703435)

That's why we beat or bleed or burn the evil spirits out of them, right?

Re:Could be (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about a year ago | (#43703517)

I heard if you hold a person under water long enough the evil spirits will leave them. I don't know where they go, maybe into a fish?

Re: Could be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703611)

I think he is trying to say that we often want to "find" a reason why people do bad things as if there is something wrong with them. But in fact that they are perfectly healthy

Unscientific psychiatry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703365)

Some history of the profession:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOScYBwMyAA

And just an aside, when Freud was just starting out his work, he did a lot of research into the problems of children among the aristocrats in Vienna. He found and reported a high level of sexual abuse among the children of such families where children were literally pimped out to aunts and uncles and all manner of wretched stuff. The back lash from guilty rich families threatened to drive him into poverty or possibly even jail. He immediately changed his tune and came up with the rationalization for all the sexual trauma children displayed by creating a new theory that we are all very familiar with today. To be clear, Freud lied and in doing so, created a bullshit school of thought which all the guilty abusers and stockholm victims could latch onto in order to hide the abuse. The entire profession en masse abandoned reason(and the poor tortured children) to placate themselves and child molesters.

So, while there is valid science possible in this realm of study, the field is incredibly corrupt.

Psychology VS Psychiatry (5, Informative)

comp.sci (557773) | about a year ago | (#43703367)

It is worth noting that the central distinction between psychiatrists and psychologists is that generally psychiatrists can prescribe medications (they are doctors). It's therefore not surprising that some psychologists would issue a statement like this. Honestly, this single statement by what appears to be a spokesperson discredits their entire ramblings: "it was unhelpful to see mental health issues as illnesses with biological causes". It's quite shocking to see professionals show such ignorance of their own field, just because they specialize in one aspect of it. While we are certainly still in the dark ages of neuroscience and psychiatry, there is a reason why we can control a ton of psychiatric illnesses with medications. We have many decades worth of research that specifically shows you what goes wrong in a person's brain with many psychiatric illnesses.

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#43703433)

I was going to post something very similar, but you shouldn't be surprised at the ignorance. My neurologist(who's been treating me for chronic headache, cluster headaches, and chronic migraines for a decade), is also a licensed psychiatrist has nothing but scorn for those "who couldn't cut the coursework." I wouldn't say we're in the dark ages in regards to it. But we're not to the enlightenment period yet either, we understand a hell of a lot more about the brain including how to treat issues then 20 years ago. She's pretty famous for her rants against psychiatrists who believe that "patients should be left to their own devices, instead of being treated as needed to keep them from harming themselves or others."

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43703629)

My neurologist(who's been treating me for chronic headache, cluster headaches, and chronic migraines for a decade)

I used to have a car mechanic that I thought was great. Always very pleasant, always explained what needed doing and why. Car was always good when I got it back. Used him for years. Recommended him to my brother. My brother used him once, but didn't go back. I asked him why. He said he replaces parts that don't need replacing. I didn't believe it. Then my brother said, OK, when did you have the car in when it didn't need some parts. And I realised I hadn't a leg to stand on. He may have been gouging me, and I wouldn't know. It never occurred to me that other people were getting their cars serviced elsewhere without always needing these extra repairs.

How do you know you've been getting the best treatment from this neurologist you respect? How do you know you wouldn't have got better results elsewhere. And why is the opinion of the neurologist you happen to have superior to that of some other professionals she despises?

Of course she might be a great neurologist. But are you in a position to know? Or is it really just a "Love the one you're with" situation? Like my old mechanic.

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#43703927)

How do you know you've been getting the best treatment from this neurologist you respect? How do you know you wouldn't have got better results elsewhere.

8 neurologists later...

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry and BPS==morons! (5, Informative)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43703459)

Re: It's therefore not surprising that some psychologists would issue a statement like this.
.
I completely agree with you. In fact, the rambling statement by these psychologists (which does not appear to be scientific) is readily disproven by the biggest and most successful example of medical treatment of a mental health disorder: schizophrenia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Medication [wikipedia.org] ) and the 1950's discovery of an antipsychotic medication [wikipedia.org] which greatly improved the hallucinations and psychotic breaks undergone by schizophrenic patients: chlorpromazine [wikipedia.org] was found while looking for anti-histamines (for allergies).
.
The wikipedia article on chlorpromazine points out:
In 1955 it was approved in the United States for the treatment of emesis (vomiting). The effect of this drug in emptying psychiatric hospitals has been compared to that of penicillin and infectious diseases.[50] But the popularity of the drug fell from the late 1960s as newer drugs came on the scene. From chlorpromazine a number of other similar antipsychotics were developed. It also led to the discovery of antidepressants.[53]

Chlorpromazine largely replaced electroconvulsive therapy, psychosurgery, and insulin shock therapy.

In other words, chlorpromazine actually worked so well that the psychiatrists no longer had to resort to ECT, brain surgery, or screwing with the patient's sugar and insulin levels.
.
You'd have to be a complete moron to claim that there is no evidence for medical and pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia: the evidence is almost 60 years old. The only conclusion to draw from this is that the British Psychological Society is, in fact, composed of vast groups of complete morons who do not believe in science or the scientific method.

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry and BPS==morons! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43703557)

You'd have to be a complete moron to claim that there is no evidence for medical and pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia: the evidence is almost 60 years old. The only conclusion to draw from this is that the British Psychological Society is, in fact, composed of vast groups of complete morons who do not believe in science or the scientific method.

You can only draw that conclusion if the BPS were claiming such a thing; are they?

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry and BPS==morons! (1)

ocamsrazor (228566) | about a year ago | (#43703701)

I'm sorry, your rambling statement doesn't appear to be scientific.

"In other words, chlorpromazine actually worked so well that the psychiatrists no longer had to resort to ECT, brain surgery, or screwing with the patient's sugar and insulin levels."
You'd have to be a complete moron to claim that that is proof chlorpromazine works.

The problem with the mental health field is that it's almost impossible to rigorously define an actual illness the way we can with physical illness. This makes diagnosis and measuring the efficacy of treatment incredibly difficult. Hell even defining what it means for a schizophrenic to be "well" is hard.

It's undeniable that people suffer from mental illness and the psychologists in the article are just as guilty of terrible science as the psychiatrists they criticise, but there are huge problems in this entire field and we're going to see spats like this go on and on until someone can produce some coherent scientific evidence that tells us anything at all about mental health.

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry and BPS==morons! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703745)

If we have a cure why are there three times more mentally ill people than there were 60 years ago?

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry and BPS==morons! (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43703859)

For the same reason that there was a surge in "autistic" children, or "autism spectrum" disorder kids in the last decade: more people being diagnosed. Do you know that in the 1700s nobody was labeled with having Parkinson's disease? Or Lou Gehrig's disease? Of course, there were probably people who had those diseases, but those disease names or the recognition of those syndromes as specific diseases did not even exist at that time!
.
So of course once something has been defined there's a greater likelihood of it being recognized as existing in a patient as more doctors are trained about the knowledge and existence of the disease.
.
And that's not even going into the secondary gain that people get from having kids labelled as "autism spectrum" disorder kids: extra time on tests, extra help in school, some people like these diagnoses (like "Aspergers's") because it makes their kids or them "special" and eligible for aid or benefits. So sometimes there's also fraudulent labeling for secondary gain.

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43703501)

An interesting point. However I wonder about this part:

While we are certainly still in the dark ages of neuroscience and psychiatry, there is a reason why we can control a ton of psychiatric illnesses with medications.

Now here's the thing. We can alter the behaviour and mood of ANYONE with drugs. Give them more can-do spirit with caffeine, coke or speed. Relax them with cannabinoids. Make them stupid and overconfident with alcohol. Friendly/loving/empathic with Ecstasy etc.

So of course with drugs we can change the behaviour of people diagnosed with a mental illness to better suit societies expectations, or to lift their mood. But that doesn't mean that their problem was biomedical. There's no theoretical reason why a person whose mental problem has an experiential cause, such as childhood abuse, wouldn't benefit from treatment with drugs.

Successful bio-chemical treatment doesn't prove bio-chemical cause.

My own layman's opinion, for the nothing it is worth, is that there's a mixed bag of biomedical and experiential causes, together with a bunch of people that just don't buy into societies current norms, and are wrongly diagnosed as ill. And that you can change anyone, ill or not, temporarily or permanently, with both drugs and experiences.

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703571)

It is worth noting that the central distinction between psychiatrists and psychologists is that generally psychiatrists can prescribe medications (they are doctors). It's therefore not surprising that some psychologists would issue a statement like this.

Honestly, this single statement by what appears to be a spokesperson discredits their entire ramblings:
"it was unhelpful to see mental health issues as illnesses with biological causes".

It's quite shocking to see professionals show such ignorance of their own field, just because they specialize in one aspect of it. While we are certainly still in the dark ages of neuroscience and psychiatry, there is a reason why we can control a ton of psychiatric illnesses with medications. We have many decades worth of research that specifically shows you what goes wrong in a person's brain with many psychiatric illnesses.

That's as stupid as a nurse practioner saying they don't agree with what doctors do simply because they cant write scripts for narcotics. Or a nurse saying nurse practioners generally do something wrong because they cant write scripts at all. Your argument of "They are just jealous" is really dumb.

And yes we do have decades worth of research, but we have decades worth of research that is also not true at all or based on opinion and not fact. You act as if we have a map of psychiatry that is infallible or something.

And just drugging someone isn't control at all because it doesn't control the problem at all, it just renders the person unable to do anything. That's like saying "Well mr johns you have a serious termite infestation in your home. So our solution is go live someplace else" because the house is still infested, nothing has been done to solve the infestation, they just made it so the people living there cant go home. Its like having swept a pile of dirt under the rug and walking away. Or another example being "This guy beats his wife. So just make him drink so much every night when he gets home that he passes out and the problem is solved"

Sure occasionally some drugs can solve problems by effecting like dopamine reuptake inhibitors or whatnot, but most times its just used to dull the person down so much the symptoms cease to show despite still being there.

I put more faith in psychologists as I being a nurse have worked with dozens of them and psychiatrists. From my viewpoint psychologists tend to care more about patients and are more about getting to the root of the problem while psychiatrists tend to want to medicate the problem. Same thing with a doctor if you are having major pain in your back they will write you a script for pain meds and say to rest, a physical therapist will solve the problem with exercises and stretches. From a non medication approach there is nothing a psychiatrist cant do a psychologist can do, except charge you triple the rate.

Re:Psychology VS Psychiatry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703819)

To put it in computer terms then,

Software debugger/programmer declares there's no such thing as hardware faults or poor hardware design.

Er (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43703375)

Psychologists != Psychiatrists. Derp slashdot, just derp.

Re:Er (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43704045)

Derp slashdot, just derp.

Is derp a verb now?

And is slashdot the direct object, or are you telling slashdot to derp?

Scientology is proved correct yet again! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703395)

Join today: www.scientology.org

Re:Scientology is proved correct yet again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703527)

Scientology is "proved correct" in the same sense that the Theory of Seven-Legged Space Unicorns In Your Underpants Make Everything Happen is "proved correct" by the failure of Luminiferous Aether Theory to explain the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments. Only Scientology is slightly less plausible.

Re:Scientology is proved correct yet again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703583)

Seven-Legged Space Unicorns In Your Underpants Make Everything Happen

Seven-Legged Space Unicorns In My Underpants make only one thing happen, but for that brief period, it feels like everything.

Re:Scientology is proved correct yet again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703879)

You peed your pants *again*? Sheesh, some Mother's Day this is turning out to be.

Psychiatry created by Pharma (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703427)

The entire field of Psychiatry was created by the pharmaceutical industry with the express purpose of selling more drugs.

Re:Psychiatry created by Pharma (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703495)

Those pharmaceutical guys are evil. They also were behind the fake moon landing and kept an open tab for the 9/11 attackers to buy any boner pills and anti-depressives they wanted.

Re:Psychiatry created by Pharma (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43704107)

The entire field of Psychiatry was created by the pharmaceutical industry with the express purpose of selling more drugs.

Actually, psychiatry was created by people who wanted to explain everything as the consequence of feeling guilty about jacking off. The pharmaceuticals came along later.

And pace the whiners, drugs *do* help a lot of people. It's hit-and-miss, and not much more scientific than "let's try this and see if it works", but at least that's an approach based on evidence rather than theories about wanking off.

Also, we've made a *lot* of progress in finding effective drugs over the past decades. If you think our methods are sloppy now, turn back the clock 30, 40, or 50 years, and see how well we were treating mental problems then.

Hopefully someday we'll actually understand mental/brain disorders and know how (and whether) to treat them. But we're not there yet.

Turf war. (3, Funny)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#43703453)

British Psychological Society's division of clinical psychology says "Psychiatry is bogus"

How much do you want to bet that this is a turf war?

--
BMO

Unfortunate examples (5, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#43703479)

Those are some unfortunate examples, considering both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are at least partially heritable and there's other good evidence both have a big biological component.

Psychologists have a good point that considering all mental illnesses to be biologically caused and solely pharmaceutically treatable is not a good thing, but these ones seem to have gone overboard the other way.

quackery by another name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703493)

all of it is fraud

people go into "mental health" because its like religion, an easy job with no expected results -- and like religious workers at some point in their careers they realize it is all bullshit but keep going because what else are they are going to do?

Probabilities (1)

hawks5999 (588198) | about a year ago | (#43703499)

Studies havefound that if you have emotional problems, the probability that you will be well in 1 year if you go to see a psychoanalyst is 44%; psychotherapist is 53%; Psychiatrist is 61%; no one at all is 73%

Re:Probabilities (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43703575)

Do you have a link to any such studies? Not doubting - in fact it sounds all too believable - but it'd be good to have a source.

Re:Probabilities (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year ago | (#43703635)

"Emotional problems" light enough that someone doesn't need help can be easily handled alone, thus the 73% stat (assuming it's true). Once someone feels bad enough that they seem help, it probably is harder to handle even with the help.

Re:Probabilities (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703991)

Your statistic is selectively biased, since only those with bigger problems actually go seek professional help, and those who don't do no because their problem is not as bad.

Also: I AM a neuropsychologist, and fact is: It doesn't matter how you are after $x time. The question is how you are THE WHOLE REST OF YOUR LIFE. As in: *Actually cured*? Or will it pop out somewhere else in another year... this time unfixable by any of your "solutions"...?

With all "standard" psychotherapies and psychiatric meds I can *guarantee* you (and I'll bet money on that without even blinking), that it is *absolutely impossible* to ever cure somebody. *Ever*. Every case of somebody saying he's "cured, is a delusion. It will pop out again. Or it already has popped out some place else, and he's in denial about it. I have yet to see a single case contradicting that.

What's required for it to *actually* work:
1. You find the actual causes. The neural links (=experiences) that cause all the unwanted behavior/reactions. For this they have to be triggered and trigger other stuff too. This is done by having intense signals flow through the neurons closest to them. (Because the repressed links are very weak connections.) And that is done with intense sensory input of a pattern as close to the original experience as possible. Which obviously is a feedback loop process, where you get closer with every iteration of input, triggers, remembering, readjusting of input patterns. And you need to get to the bottom of it. To help the patient from drifting off, a *lot* of comfort has to be given, linking this with positive experiences, as the old memories will of course by definition be *extremely* frightening to them. This technique is a simple ultra-deep therapy, comparable to what was one primal therapy, but much more scientific and clear. But pretty much all therapists simply don't have the balls to go that deep. You *have* to be able to deal with destruction of the room, aggression, nudity, intense sexual instincts, and all kinds of bodily fluids being spread all around the room, like an animal or little child. I can. But who else can do that? You? *Definitely* not the emotionally crippled psychotherapists, let alone the emotionally dead/psychopathic psychiatrists.
2. Now that you know the actual causes, you know what neural associations/links to re-train. So you do that, by creating very intense neutral input targeted at those wrong links, re-associating them with the correct triggers/memories/behaviors/feelings. So you could call it a behavioral therapy, but it should be much much more intense. 24/7 "holy shit" trip (of mostly positive emotions) intense. The more intense, and the mentally younger you are, the quicker it will be fixed. Yes, certain drugs could definitely *help* there. But absolutely not our current crap with its heroine-like withdrawal syndromes and at best questionable effects, and of course never just by themselves without doing all the rest.

re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703515)

Don't worry...psychiatry and big pharma are dedicated to the maintenance of your mental disorders. Our people are hard at work digging up dirt on these renegade psychologists. C'mon, trust us, we're doctors for pete's sake, not like these wanna-be's. We haven't made any real advances in 50 years or so but we're *really* close. If only we had a a few more measly billions we could really get things moving.

Here come the Scientologists. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703555)

This story will be like honey to them.

There is no "chemical imbalance" (0)

bitrex (859228) | about a year ago | (#43703577)

There is no "chemical imbalance" other than what the psychiatric drugs create, and the issue of drug dependence and withdrawal is systematically ignored by psychiatry. It has been shown that long-term use of the medications prescribed by psychiatrists can cause significant changes in brain structure and function that may be difficult or impossible to reverse, and that in susceptible populations attempts to discontinue certain medications can lead to withdrawal reactions that far exceed the severity of the original illness, even with slow tapering. For these people, there is virtually no assistance from the psychiatric community available (aside from a few "renegade" practitioners), and certainly none available from the pharmaceutical industry. Nobody really knows exactly how the drugs work, or what's happening when one tries to withdraw and things begin to go wrong. Keep in mind that in all likelihood you will be blamed for the withdrawal symptoms, not the drug, because acknowledging a withdrawal reaction would force the profession to admit that they have no idea what to do in such a situation.

Here's the shortcut to understanding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703801)

"Depression Cured at Last" by Sherry A. Rogers

Ignore at your own risk.

confessions of a pharma rep (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703811)

http://youtu.be/AazObF_pHSU

I call bunk (4, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#43703831)

I was diagnosed as bi-polar about 6-7 years ago after suffering a serious manic episode with full scale hallucinations. While it was not the first time this had happened to me, it was "the final straw" that led to me being diagnosed.

Since then I've been on Resperidone to control the manic phases, and Effexor to limit the depressive phases. I've had no hallucinations, breakdowns, suicidal thoughts, or any other problems since being put on the medication, except when I've run out of medication, thinking "Maybe I don't need it any more."

But the return of symptoms after 2-3 weeks without medication has me convinced that the diagnosis is valid and the medication effective.

Read carefully before you post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703839)

Psychologists are casting doubt, not psychiatrists.

F U Psychiatrists. (2)

Cammi (1956130) | about a year ago | (#43703953)

Here is a scenario that happens daily in Alaska. I do not know if other states have this issue: 1. Kid goes to school and have a school breakfast. 2. That breakfast is full of sugar (pancakes w/ syrup). 3. Kid cannot sit still in class due to being full of sugar. 4. Teacher reports this to the school counselor who talks to a Psychiatrist. 5. Psychiatrist recommend drugs for the kid. 6. Government steps in telling the parent that the kid must have drugs or they will be kidnapped (stolen by "Family Services"). 7. (If parent chooses to fight back against this crime, the kid will be kidnapped) 8. Kid gets doped up on drugs, which causes side effects. 9. Kid gets other drugs to negate side effects, causing more side effects. 10. Kid is stuck on drugs for life. This literally happens all the time in Alaska. F U Psychiatrists.

"Schizophrenia Experiences and Suggestions?" (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#43703995)

There was an article on /. "Schizophrenia Experiences and Suggestions?",
I bookmarked the link as it's such a good read, the experiences of those with, had, or knew others with Schizophrenia.
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/04/05/21/0140239/schizophrenia-experiences-and-suggestions [slashdot.org]

Yes, find out more (Score:5, Insightful)
by spellraiser (764337) on Friday May 21, 2004 @01:04PM (#9217287)

"Wow, who would have thought I'd see this on slashdot? It makes little sense to post this question here, but yet, it was posted. And I am reading it. Which is ... interesting, since my brother too was diagnosed with schizophrenia, a little over two years ago now. This thread shouts out to me to say something about it, but I find now that it is harder than it seems...." then continues a story of his twin brother.

I can't paste all the post yet few venture to another link, I can say you will have a different outlook on Schizophrenia.

One of the threads does address the DSM so on topic :}
by HBI (604924) on Friday May 21, 2004 @01:16PM (#9217475)
"Homosexuality was in the DSM as a treatable psychological disorder up till 1973."

----
Yep I've read /. from it's first days yet didn't register until just recently.
Never felt knowledgeable enough to post, still don't just said the heck with it :}

So you replace it with .... what? (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year ago | (#43704053)

OK, I'm more than willing to admit we don't have a clue about many neurological disease processes. Schizophrenia and Bipolar disorders may be dozens of different specific diseases that happen to present in a similar way. I get that.

But until we *know* what those diseases are, schizophrenia is useful in that it describes a set of symptoms that commonly occur together, that we can treat.

Theoretical models are never "right" or "wrong." These are meaningless terms. They are only more or less useful in that they provide some predictive and/or manipulative power. Period. End of story.

Public Insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704057)

Nobody wants to believe they are nuts. Families usually want to think of a family member having a little problem or being just a bit different rather than confronting the fact that a family member has a major mental illness. And families have a huge financial motive to believe their family member is not "that bad". Admitting that a family member has a serious problem can be economic death for the entire family. Many states have no decent, public, mental health treatment at all. That means it is going to be out of pocket, probably very long term, and hugely expensive. Insurance companies do little to cover mental illness and it gets worse. If the person is unable to work or off enough to be unemployable then the family will be in perpetual financial support for all of the person's needs. What would a family with four children do? Three need college and the stuff that all kids need growing up. The sick child will consume the entire family income. To spend $250,000 per year, every year, trying to restore a mental patient to functional status is a reality. And it can get a lot worse. many mentally ill people feel such agony that illegal narcotics give them a moment of peace. You end up with a mentally ill drug addict who has almost zero chance of cure who will steal and do every trick known to man to get dope. Sate programs are worthless as a rule as budget restraints make real treatment in effective. Yet funding of mental health research is so low that it is a sick joke.. The US spends more money every year researching lipstick than insanity.
                    And just to completely screw the pooch who is already staggering and about to drop we frequently put addicts and the mentally ill into jails and prisons. Mental illness in a prison will always become worse. Treating mental illness in a depressing environment can not work. Drug addiction and alcoholism can not happen unless the person is mentally ill.
                      To do much with mental illness one must change the entire society and society hates change.

This is simple competition for profit. (1)

macraig (621737) | about a year ago | (#43704059)

The psychiatrists are angry about this statement because it threatens their ability to bilk patients and healthcare systems out of money for pills that cost nothing to produce. The psychologists issued the statement because they're butthurt that the psychiatrists have been edging them out of their own turf and their ability to charge people $100 an hour for a service that guarantees no results at all. The pills carry no guarantee of success either, but at least they don't cost $100 per hour.

The statement has a political and financial motive, not an objective medical one. It's medical mafia turf wars, nothing more.

Don't need no DSM, we got brain scans now. (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#43704061)

And can read genes.

"How to spot a murderer's brain"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/12/how-to-spot-a-murderers-brain [guardian.co.uk]

Yep, just scan everybody's brain, then jail those who fit the pattern, or are the carrier of one particular set of genes.

Crime prevention at it's best.

Stating the obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704109)

..that if you willingly go to a British doctor then you need your head examined.

You cretins (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704123)

I've been telling you for years that there is no such thing as a 'chemical imbalance' in the brain, there is no physical cause of 'mental illness', ALL psychological problems are caused by painful events, whether physically painful or emotionally painful, most psychological problems stem from painful events that occurred during your childhood, etc.etc. I was modded down and eventually banned for 'bad posts' (LOL).

Psychiatrists are sociopaths who can't FEEL and therefore try to drug their 'patients' (victims, more like) into submission, anything as long as the poor psychiatrists (physician, heal thyself) doesn't have to FEEL anything.

If you really want to find the solution to all of this, and the world's problems, we need to follow the Hedonistic Imperative:

http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm

Most people are so screwed up and neurotic that, when presented with the above information about the possibility of the end of all suffering, they REJECT it, and prefer to continue living in their own shitty, selfish misery. Unbelievable.

Also, most people are so neurotic that they can't even DISCUSS things like this, and hence we are stuck in a world of unbelievable suffering. The suffering of animals alone is beyond comprehension, even in one hour, on this planet - but I'm sure none of the sociopaths of Slashdot have ever bothered to give that any thought...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...