• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mental Disorders and Religious Sentiment...

Well, that raises my eyebrow. Ten percent of the population is considered to be depressed?! And 5 million kids on Ritalin. This stuff does deserve more study. What is causing 10% of the population to be in a current state of depression according to the mental health community? What are their proposed solutions? And why so many kids on Ritalin? What are the proposed solutions and directions on that?

The five million kids on Ritalin is not my quote, depression is defined as a persistant sad mood that lasts for more than two weeks, although most mental health professionals will use adjustment disorder for most people with that short a depression, the DSM-IV guidelins for depression can be found on the web although it takes some effort.

The ten percent number comes survey, ten percent of the people respond to surveys as though they meet the criteria for depression, in a longitudinal survey that is usualy post event and not truely longitudinal 30% of people will say that they met the criteria for depression at some point in thier lives.

What is causing 10% of the population to be in a current state of depression according to the mental health community?

Most depression is stress related and usualy accompanied by severe sleep disturbance, if the depression is situational and not interfereing with the person's life than supportive counseling would help, if the depression is longer term, than therapy or medication is usualy beneficial.

Someimes people have to make major life style changes as well.


What are their proposed solutions?
I go to work everday, we do psyco education as part of our jobs, I try to help the people who want help. Most people have a situational depression, and so the best treatment is to change the situation, intervention is only warranted where there is a decrease in functioning.

And why so many kids on Ritalin? What are the proposed solutions and directions on that?

That is a subject of considerable debate, I would never recommended medication unless a child is having a decrease in functiong in all enviroments. Parents often abuse thier children or lead chaotic lives, whcih can cause kids major problems, often kids are recommended for an evaluation for ADHD, when really they have just crappy lives. Then the best intervention is individual and when possible, family therapy.
 
No. You're not believing in something that you simply do not want to. Your argument that the evidence is lacking is simply wrong, but you wish to discount all of it.

Not all of it. Just most of it.

Much of your argument seems to be based on the fact that illnesses diagnosed by subjective measures are bogus.

Bogus on their worst days... weak on their best days.

Would you then discount the existence of migraine (or any) headaches, chronic back pain, or heartburn? These are subjective diagnoses that seldom have objective correlates. Are they invalid then?

The presence of psycho-somatic factors makes them more suspect than say a fractured bone, so their evidence is also weaker. As to whether or not I "believe" in them, I'm certainly hampered in doing so.
 
Not all of it. Just most of it.



Bogus on their worst days... weak on their best days.



The presence of psycho-somatic factors makes them more suspect than say a fractured bone, so their evidence is also weaker. As to whether or not I "believe" in them, I'm certainly hampered in doing so.


So you don't think people should be treated for migranes? that is really too bad, so I suppose doctors dhould just avoid all treatment based upon subjective report and observation, that would exclude a lot of treatment.

You can have ineffective and innapropriate treatment even in the precense of objective dadta Stamen, medicine will not be the state where physicis is for quite a while yet.

What is your competing theory Stamen, what creates the phenomena that are labels as mental illness? What te=reatmenst do you suggest? Most people recive 'life style counseling' or whatever you want to call it, the changes a person makes in thier day to day life are always part of conventional mental health treatment, that sualy has the greates benefit in the vast majority of cases, such things as the medical nomeclature of 'sleep hygiene' are based upon the subjective report of the patient and thier reported behaviors, the counselor or doctor then makes suggestions for changes in behavior that are often very effective in changing the persons's reported slweep patterns. that is rather typical of mental health treatment.

Are there dcotors who perscribe medication at the drop of the proverbial hat? Sure but it is part of all medicine, not just mental health. That is the nature of medicine as it is practiced. You are aware that many medical ethicists are opposed to always having to make tests and see specialists, there are many who consider it to be bad medicine.

If every person who reports they have recieved a blow to the head is sent for a CT scan or NMRI, that is bad medicine. How is a doctor to use that specific test?

By the report of the patients subjective experience and observation of the patients behaviors. that is the way medicine is Stamen, not just the limited area of mental health but all medicine.
 
Much of your argument seems to be based on the fact that illnesses diagnosed by subjective measures are bogus.


Bogus on their worst days... weak on their best days.


Would you then discount the existence of migraine (or any) headaches, chronic back pain, or heartburn? These are subjective diagnoses that seldom have objective correlates. Are they invalid then?


The presence of psycho-somatic factors makes them more suspect than say a fractured bone, so their evidence is also weaker. As to whether or not I "believe" in them, I'm certainly hampered in doing so.

plenty of people suffer from chronic pain. Pain is subjective. Do you therefore not "believe" that this pain exists?
 
Pain is subjective. Do you therefore not "believe" that this pain exists?

Maybe it does, who is to know? What I do know is that you can't force me to take medicine if I'm in pain, nor can you commit me to an institution. You can't force my kids to take Oxycontin at school for their pain. You can't use my pain to excuse my behavior in a court of law.

Mental pain is different. It carries a different authority. It wields a different power. By labeling our moods "disorders," we can afford ourselves and others an opportunity to move away from personal responsibility, not toward it.
 
Maybe it does, who is to know?

i think that highlights your ignorance quite succinctly.



Mental pain is different. It carries a different authority. It wields a different power. By labeling our moods "disorders," we can afford ourselves and others an opportunity to move away from personal responsibility, not toward it.

the problem that mental conditions cause for society is that people such as yourself are unable (or unwilling) to empathize - and without empathy there is no understanding. Instead there's a rather cold "well I'm all right, I reckon everyone else is all right too...." mentality. This is quite a depressing view.
 
Stamenflicker,
Are you willing to concede that, as Dr. Ramachandran put it, neurology is in the same state as electromagnetism was prior to Maxwell? IOW, that it's still in the empirical data gathering stage, not at a solid predictive stage. Only recently have we been able to open up the head and take a peek without damamging the whole system. It will take a while to collect the data necessary to see a causal correlation.
 
Maybe it does, who is to know? What I do know is that you can't force me to take medicine if I'm in pain, nor can you commit me to an institution. You can't force my kids to take Oxycontin at school for their pain. You can't use my pain to excuse my behavior in a court of law.

Mental pain is different. It carries a different authority. It wields a different power. By labeling our moods "disorders," we can afford ourselves and others an opportunity to move away from personal responsibility, not toward it.

The only reason that people are commited is because they are at risk of harming themselves and others, and the standard in Illinois is very high for involuntary commitment. But I can see that it is a serious abrogation of civil liberties. I do not fill in a petition for involuntary hospitalization lightly or frivolously.

As for moving away from personal responsibilty, I disagree, I am all for the legal charging of crimes wether the person has a mental illness, or not.

And again, if you eat a really high fat diet, what resp[onsibilty is there in being perscribed Lipitor, that cuts across all areas of medication. In Illinois you don't have to wear a motorcycle helmet, but I have to pay all the tzes to support the people who get gorked or other brain trauma for it.

there is areal lack of responsibility in all areas, not just mental health. Saying that your mental illness made you act out is like saying that diabetes made you act out, I don't encourage it and I certainly confront people about it.
 
the problem that mental conditions cause for society is that people such as yourself are unable (or unwilling) to empathize - and without empathy there is no understanding. Instead there's a rather cold "well I'm all right, I reckon everyone else is all right too...." mentality. This is quite a depressing view.

Not at all, the problem is quite "succiently" that you and others are quite quick to label anyone who doesn't buy into your mythology as lacking empathy. I've already addressed this above. I'm deeply empathetic to people's moods.
 
Are you willing to concede that, as Dr. Ramachandran put it, neurology is in the same state as electromagnetism was prior to Maxwell?

Yes.


IOW, that it's still in the empirical data gathering stage, not at a solid predictive stage. Only recently have we been able to open up the head and take a peek without damamging the whole system. It will take a while to collect the data necessary to see a causal correlation.

I completely think that this is the case.

However, I also think that we'll forever be without set answers because even if we had identical twins with the exact same physiological condition I suspect that we could very well see difference in mood management.

I also think that as we proceed, we should pay very careful attention to our "kind making" or we could trap ourselves in a new dark age.
 
The only reason that people are commited is because they are at risk of harming themselves and others, and the standard in Illinois is very high for involuntary commitment. But I can see that it is a serious abrogation of civil liberties. I do not fill in a petition for involuntary hospitalization lightly or frivolously.

As for moving away from personal responsibilty, I disagree, I am all for the legal charging of crimes wether the person has a mental illness, or not.

And again, if you eat a really high fat diet, what resp[onsibilty is there in being perscribed Lipitor, that cuts across all areas of medication. In Illinois you don't have to wear a motorcycle helmet, but I have to pay all the tzes to support the people who get gorked or other brain trauma for it.

there is areal lack of responsibility in all areas, not just mental health. Saying that your mental illness made you act out is like saying that diabetes made you act out, I don't encourage it and I certainly confront people about it.

We're not so different then -- maybe in simple categories of naming.
 
Okie dokie.




I completely think that this is the case.

However, I also think that we'll forever be without set answers because even if we had identical twins with the exact same physiological condition I suspect that we could very well see difference in mood management.

I also think that as we proceed, we should pay very careful attention to our "kind making" or we could trap ourselves in a new dark age.
What does the bolded phrase mean? Maybe it's that i'm running on WAY too little sleep to get it, but I'm completely lost to your point.

To the twins point; I disagree. It would be possible to figure out from a statistical standpoint a causal correlation. Using Dr. Ramachandran as an example, he was able to make great strides in treating phantom pain by correlating the responses of various of his, and other doctors' paitents. Was it enough to completely rid the amputee community of that affliction? No, not yet, but he was able to understand the phenomon a bit more. One day, perhaps.
 
What does the bolded phrase mean? Maybe it's that i'm running on WAY too little sleep to get it, but I'm completely lost to your point.

I mean treating something as a natural kind, when in reality it may not be. Even if we completely map the human brain (and again I have doubts), we can't really be certain which items getting mapped are natural kinds and which are merely cultural artifacts. It's the "what" that we chose to map that seems important, at least to me.

To the twins point; I disagree. It would be possible to figure out from a statistical standpoint a causal correlation.

I think it might be possible, especially in some areas like extreme mood swings such as "bi-polar." But I think we will have to have a much tighter definition for "depression" to be able to generate an acceptable relation. Even then, we'll be left with other things that just won't correlate (my hunch)... things like preference, purpose, etc.

One day, perhaps.

I've said all along that I hope that day comes-- and that I hope we are wise enough to know how to handle this kind of knowledge.
 
Now you're asking the right questions. They're important questions. They're questions we should have been asking back when we were sterilizing people. They're the same questions we should be asking now that we're mentally sterilizing people's moods.

Two things:
1) I can't help but notice that you did not, in fact, answer my question. As a result, I'm losing interest in participating in the thread, because I get the impression you're just screwing with me.

2) We've always asked these questions. I asked them of myself and others when I was 12. Psychiatry asks itself these questions every day for the past century, and publishes stacks of papers on it. Scientists ask themselves these questions every day, and so on. The fact that you're evading the question suggests that it's unfamiliar to you, which puts you almost three decades behind me in this particular philosophical zone.

The point I'm trying to get at is that the aspect of chickenpox that makes it an illness - as opposed to a 'state of being' or whatever - is that the patient wants to get better. That's it.

Understanding the underlying physiology creates insight into how to direct efforts for treatment, but is not necessary for classification.



My concern is also that you are not in touch with these general problems' universality to all aspects of existence, and are very focused on only one application. You feel that for psychiatry, this metaphysical challenge is sufficient to reject the field. In other fields with the same challenge, you're not at all concerned.

My interpretation is that there's something special about psychiatry that you don't like that is not related to scientific issues, but more about religious or political ones, and the metaphysics of reification is an excuse and rationalization to reject the field without admitting the real underlying reasons. My assumption is that this is because you know that skeptics would reject their importance on the grounds that they are religious or political opinions.


For example above, you bring up eugenics. Probably for emotional reasons, since it is not related to the topic at hand. This is a particular interest of mine, as I am trying to finish a manuscript on Canadian eugenic programs, particularly as they applied to the religious conflict in Canada in the early 20th century (Protestants were 100% behind it, whereas Catholics were 100% against it - it was a contraception showdown, basically). The science was, and remains, sound. The politics was faulty: it was theocratic and partisan.
 
Psychiatry asks itself these questions every day for the past century, and publishes stacks of papers on it.

Modern psychiatry asks these questions when in it is in its best interest to do so. Period. Modern psychiatry does not call to us in our ignorance. It reflects the trends of the culture in which it is embedded, making it fashionable to issue changes to its theories as people demand, not as anything particularly relevant crops us scientifically. Case in point: homosexuality.


which puts you almost three decades behind me in this particular philosophical zone.

To bad the view from back here stinks so bad.

is that the patient wants to get better. That's it.

So will we see liposuction in the next DSM-IV?

My concern is also that you are not in touch with these general problems' universality to all aspects of existence, and are very focused on only one application. You feel that for psychiatry, this metaphysical challenge is sufficient to reject the field. In other fields with the same challenge, you're not at all concerned.

I've never stated that I am unconcerned in other fields. That's rubbish. I've stated all along that the stakes are higher in mental health, and therefore require greater scruntiny because unlike the other fields, mental health carries a un-scrutinized authority over people.

But somehow everytime I bring that up, I'm accused of going off topic.

My interpretation is that there's something special about psychiatry that you don't like that is not related to scientific issues, but more about religious or political ones, and the metaphysics of reification is an excuse and rationalization to reject the field without admitting the real underlying reasons. My assumption is that this is because you know that skeptics would reject their importance on the grounds that they are religious or political opinions.

Am I paying for this counseling session? Save your two-bit babble for the asylum then.
 
I've never stated that I am unconcerned in other fields. That's rubbish. I've stated all along that the stakes are higher in mental health, and therefore require greater scruntiny because unlike the other fields, mental health carries a un-scrutinized authority over people.
No it doesn't. There's pleny of scrutiny involved in the MH field. We went from asylums being standard, where the paitents were essentially tortured on a daily basis as part of their treatment; to more modern hospitals and half-way houses (where the paitents are simply maltreated, but it has nothing to do with their treatment...hey, it's an improvment in a way).

There are non-governmetal bodies (like NAMI) who help to oversee a person's diagnosis. People who have gone before and know what should be happening. Is it perfect? No, but what in life is?

Mentally Ill people used to be thought to be possessed by demons and other evil spirits. Now, other than certain backwater African countries, that's not true. Psychaitry is in its early childhood.
 
Modern psychiatry asks these questions when in it is in its best interest to do so. Period. Modern psychiatry does not call to us in our ignorance. It reflects the trends of the culture in which it is embedded, making it fashionable to issue changes to its theories as people demand, not as anything particularly relevant crops us scientifically. Case in point: homosexuality.
More bold assertions unsupported by evidence, what evidence do you have that there are currently the same processes in place to supress the right of humans in the name of culture, and I will limit this to discussions of the uS. In the 17TH,18TH and 19TH centuries it was common to ostracize and warehouse indivuduals for wide variety of reasons in very inhumane conditions, then some french guy began to advocate for more ethical treatment of individuals, and belive me I am very aware of such inhumane things as all the bizzarre treatmnent being used prior to the 1960s and through the seventies, most notably lobotomy and involuntary sterilization, and all the abuses heaped upon the mentaly ill and developmentaly disabeled. the common example of ECT is still there as well, but now it is very arely used, the voltages are extremely smaller than they were in the past, people are given medications to counter the bad effects and it is only used with the volunary assent of a person to treat treatment refactory depression. the use and practice is now more refined than it was forty years ago. But you are acting as though the past evils of the scoiety in using menatl health to deprive people of thier human rights is well known in the mental health field.

So I ask youi plainly , what evidence do you have that it is not a commonly discussed topic, that mental health professionals are not aware of, and that bodies such as the Office of the Inspector general for the Office of mwenatl health as well as legislavtive investigation are not currentl watching the system. At the office where I work, the OIG investigates DD reports approximatley once a month and menatl health reports twice a yera.

So where in the uS is there this current wide spread abuse of human righst? (I won't discuss the systems of other countries in this context because I know they are atrocious, and I do not work in other states , so there could be widespread abuses certainly outside Illinois, but in my experience, you get you ass chwed for a wide variety of non-abuses and fired for actual abuse.)
To bad the view from back here stinks so bad.
I think most professionals are aware of that, the unmarked graves that are numbered only, the stories of the past, the current stigma and ostracization, the people who run and shame the minute they hear the word psychosis.

And yes the past is real , but where should the system be currently changing, I see a real lack of available support and resources leading to homelessness as a much greater threat in the current system, than any wide spread human rights violations, i see people who are in jail because they can't get treatment for substance abuse, that seems to be a real shame to me, but then i am a hard hearted liberal, I do believe in incarceration in spite of mental illness.
So will we see liposuction in the next DSM-IV?
that is hyperbole and you are probably aware of it, the tentative diagnosis rarely make it into the DSM, and in fact the categories have been sort of stable. they have not continued the Passive/Agressive Personality D/O and have not added a whole lot in the last three versions III, IV and IV-R.

I personaly would like to see the personality disorders reduced to behavioral descriptor indicitave of future behaviors rather than have them on Axis II, the only ones that are usueful are Boderline and Anti-Social, and the there is wide spread misapplication of them, the DSM states very clearly that they should not be diagnosed in the precence of Axis I sysmptoms, yet someone with severe depression and anxiety will get tagged with Axis II, very unproductive, they should be downgarded to behavioral only.
I've never stated that I am unconcerned in other fields. That's rubbish. I've stated all along that the stakes are higher in mental health, and therefore require greater scruntiny because unlike the other fields, mental health carries a un-scrutinized authority over people.

man are you in disgareement wit me, relgous sentiment has much higher respect, there is denial all over, which is good because people don't get help until they want it, but we are constantly being QAd QId, have supervisory review and quality review, then there are all sorts of family, friends and other 'helping' individuals who are constantly questioning everything I do. Hospitals always tride doctors about thier admission rates as do insurance carriers.

we haven't even discussed the other side of mental health, clamoring family members who demand treatment but are frustrated when they are told 'no this is behavioralor situational or your manipulation or substance induced."
But somehow everytime I bring that up, I'm accused of going off topic.

What evidence is there that this is a special problem for mental health, I am curious what you would point to, I find that in general people are dismissive and unsupportive of menatl health until it happens to them or someone they care abouty. So what are you reffering too?
Am I paying for this counseling session? Save your two-bit babble for the asylum then.

I hope not, couseling and seventy five cents will buy you coffee.

;)
 
Modern psychiatry asks these questions when in it is in its best interest to do so. Period. Modern psychiatry does not call to us in our ignorance. It reflects the trends of the culture in which it is embedded, making it fashionable to issue changes to its theories as people demand, not as anything particularly relevant crops us scientifically. Case in point: homosexuality.

We'll have to disagree, right. Psychiatry is constantly updating its reference, and the issues are a living debate. This is why the DSM is constantly being revised. Case in point: homosexuality.




So will we see liposuction in the next DSM-IV?

That doesn't even make sense. It's not a diagnosis, it's an activity. However, morbid obesity is a diagnosis of a medical condition, yes. And cosmetic surgery operates under medicine, yes.





I've never stated that I am unconcerned in other fields. That's rubbish. I've stated all along that the stakes are higher in mental health, and therefore require greater scruntiny because unlike the other fields, mental health carries a un-scrutinized authority over people.

But somehow everytime I bring that up, I'm accused of going off topic.

That's not true. You're not always being accused of going off-topic when you bring this up. It's off-topic when you claim that's a scientific failure rather than a political one. You are not resolving between the two problems, and saying that the political risk is a consequence of a field of study, which nobody else believes, and you refuse to explain why, stating it's self-evident. Whether psychiatry is legitemate or not, the field could still be abused!




Am I paying for this counseling session?

No, it's aaall part of the service... (with apologies to Blackadder)
 
We'll have to disagree, right. Psychiatry is constantly updating its reference, and the issues are a living debate. This is why the DSM is constantly being revised. Case in point: homosexuality.

No, Blutoski. You can't just let something like that slip without addressing my point. The DSM found homosexuality to be a disease when our culture thought it was a disease. The DSM changed it's stance on homosexuality as our culture changed its stance on homosexuality. Again, I'll tell you that science had nothing to do with it. Just like science has little to do with current DSM categorizations. They are trendy... like Fugue states, like MPD, like ADD. Trends.

It's off-topic when you claim that's a scientific failure rather than a political one.

I've never claimed this. I have claimed that that the political consequences are much more important in this area than the others. Case in point: you can't make get treatment for anything other than my "mental condition."



....

That doesn't even make sense. It's not a diagnosis, it's an activity. However, morbid obesity is a diagnosis of a medical condition, yes. And cosmetic surgery operates under medicine, yes.

But your point was the reason something is an illness is because "the patient wants to get better."

So how are we to treat the good looking 37-year old woman, weighing in at a nice 130lbs... a bit of a pooch in the tummy after three kids? She still looks good, nothing out of the ordinary for her age and the number of births...

But she wants that little pooch gone... she wants to "get better????"

Is she ill?
 
So where in the uS is there this current wide spread abuse of human righst?

The place I see it the most is in children. Doping them up. When I coordinated safety for my local school district, part of my responsibility was organizing community drug/violence prevention.. this meant that I was able to target early intervention programs in elementary schools, as well as colaborate with juvenile courts for restorative justice programs.

I've seen these kids first hand-- and the most disgusting thing????

Medication with no form of counseling whatsoever. Dope em up and send them out the door. In many cases it was the family doctor writing the prescription... but I've known psychiatrists who doped up kids after one meeting and the only follow-ups they scheduled were to see how the meds were working.

You can't tell me that this is a problem isolated in my home town... I've read similar stories from all over the place...

"You son has ADD."

"Take this... we'll adjust as needed..."

Yeah right. Many of the kids I worked with just sold their meds to users to crush and snort. Others just cried like babies in my office about how much they hated their meds. And yeah, a few it actually helped.

Then there was my time in the area mental health hospital... as I stated I was on the women's floor. Time and time again, I watched men drop of their women in a state of hysteria (probably because of something sh!tty he did) I watched them get their meds, calm down... then the husbands were there first thing Monday morning to pick them up... betcha he had a great weekend!

I'll never forget the 19-year old hooker... the cops would pick her up and dump her at the institution. They keep her as long as the law said they had to (usually 48 hours)... they'd drug her up, pat her on the back and send her home with a brand spanking new prescription. Her pimp was waiting at the gate to pick her up every time... 10 days later, we'd see her come through the system again-- RINSE AND REPEAT.

And this was 1993, my friend. Not 100 years ago. Slap a diagnosis on them, give them their meds, and send them on their merry little way.

So go ahead and say, "That's a shame." They should have gotten counseling... go ahead and appeal to words, because we need them to make a difference. But don't try to tell me that you can talk away my miagraine, cause it just aint the same damn thing.
 

Back
Top Bottom