On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 03:14:34AM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> No comparison necessary. You imply that containing uncivil conduct from
> "eccentrics" quells the productivity of a LUG. We contain such conduct on
Yes, it does quell the productivity of a LUG.
> the SLUG list, yet we've had tremendous successes recently in two major
> shows down here (soon to be a third).
> They study the same basic information, and one is an MD (who obviously
> studies more medical stuff) while the other is not. I have equal contempt
> for both.
. . . so you've already made up your mind, and defending them would be
a waste of time. But I feel so obligated. ;)
> Read the minutes of the APA's meetings, if you don't believe what I say
> about their methods of choosing what goes in the DSM. But here's
I've attended a few, thanks. I still think your idea about that is
misplaced.
> something else to think about. Psychs make money when people have mental
> difficulties. So it's in their best interests to have as many and as
> minor difficulties turned in the "syndromes" or "diseases" as possible.
Sure, except they did take a Hippocratic oath. If you're having
problems with dishonesty in the field, that's one thing. You can find that
in any field.
> Voila the DSM. Once there, it can be encoded with the proper medical
> industry code, put on insurance forms, and "treated". And don't tell me
> these people aren't putting minor ailments into the DSM. The DSM has
> mushroomed in recent years from mental "disabilities" that before were
> simply facts of life. And don't tell me these people are doing what they
> do for the "good of mankind". There is more fraud, abuse and malpractice
> in the psychiatric field than any other healing art (and I only
> reluctantly use the term "healing art", because that's the way insurance
> companies look at it).
Erm, you should really look into where ever you read that. It's a
well known fact that emergency medicine has the largest number of
malpractice cases. Consistently. ;)
> Okay, so Joanne has a "chemical imbalance" (the latest buzzword of the
> psych industry). Did they test the actual chemicals first to determine
Not terribly recent buzzword . . .
> that? And are they completely certain that they know what the right
> "balance" is? And did they check her diet first? And once they determined
> her "chemical imbalance", what did they do? Let's see. Paxil.
> Wellbutrin. Et al. Oh that's right. Joanne just went through a divorce
> and is fighting for the custody of her children. Or, Joanne just lost her
> job. Or Joanne has been tense about sex ever since she was raped at 19.
This type of thing would be uncovered through therapy sessions, if the
patient is honestly seeking help. To be quite honest, I always recommend
a patient first seek out therapy and a theraputic relationship (half the
therapy, in many cases) with a psychologist, not a psychiatrist. At that
point you elminate any preemptive medication.
On the other hand, if you need a little help over a bump in your life,
there's nothing wrong with a two week supply, no refills, of something like
celexa or zoloft. You can't overdose on that family anymore, either (used
to be many anti-depressants would act like neurotoxins if you overdoses,
now you just get diarrhea).
> Spare me. Even if such a "chemical imbalance" exists, psychs are loath
> to discern the true reasons for it. Actually, "incapable" and
That's a very broad generalization. I thought you were more
intelligent than that . . . guess not.
> "unwilling" are the more proper terms. And their treatment is
> symptom-based, not cause-based. And often, their treatments are worse
> than the "disease". Witness Ritalin, a favorite of the psychs. It's a
> powerful stimulant, given primarily to children. Unfortunately, it's
> addictive, and causes children to become violent and antisocial with
> some regularity. You'll find that most of the shooting incidents at
> schools in this country are perpetrated by children on psychiatric
> drugs, primarily Ritalin.
Firstly, most of the shooting incidents at schools in this country (not
the ones you heard about on TV) are unrelated to any _legal_ "medicine" the
students are taking.
Secondly, there are two ways to treat ADD and ADHD: anti-depressants
(prozac, celexa, zoloft, etc.) and stimulants (ritalin, aderol, etc.).
Included in the American Toxicology Report annually is information related
> And BTW, the psych industry has been given more money than God and more
> opportunities to figure out what makes people tick than any other field.
You are smoking SO MUCH crack. Anti-viral agents are the NUMBER
FUCKING ONE research topic. This benefits HIV, HSV-{1,2,3,4,...&} patients
and has TRILLIONS of dollars pumped into it every year (combined private
research and various countries' government's programs). Drug research for
psychiatric-prescribed drugs are funded mainly in the US, nearly totally by
private companies. Complain about them; they're the ones you're angry
with.
> With all that time and money, they should know precisely what causes
> what, and precisely how to "cure" (not _treat_) it. And yet their
Average consumers with a desire to "cure" brain-related "problems" led
to pre-frontal lobotomies. Be careful what you wish for.
> treatments say volumes about the fact that they really haven't a clue.
The brain is incredibly complex. I'm sorry you cannot appreciate that.
Observing how the body heals on a cellular level is much easier than
observing the chemistry of the brain. Our observation tools are no where
near advanced enough.
> Moreover, here is a field where "expert witnesses" are a dime a dozen,
> each hired (often in the same case) to testify as to the sanity or
> insanity of perpetrators. When two seemingly respectable members of the
> same field can look at the same individual and come to diametrically
> opposed conclusions as to his mental state, you're not talking about
> science. A ballistics expert can say without hesitation whether a bullet
> came from a given gun. Hire twenty other ballistics experts, and they'll
> all come to the same conclusion.
The ballistics experts have the laws of physics concreted for them.
Their field is not progressing in that area. Psychiatric and psychology
have many fields of study and are too often compared to each other (like
you're doing now). Let's look at another science. A chemical engineer and
a civil engineer are both asked to inspect an apartment's interior for
regulation violations. I'm fairly certain the civil engineer will condemn
ANY place, and the chemical engineer will walk around with a confused look
on his or her face.
On another note, I agree that too many "expert witnesses" are neither.
> Putting a field in the category of "science" does not necessarily make
> it a science. Psychiatry and psychology are good examples.
Your expectations of an admittedly-growing science are very large. I
suspect in another time, you might have dismissed physics because you
didn't understand the math behind it.
> And the _Random House College Dictionary_ disagrees with dict.org.
> Interesting, too, that the word has a history long before the advent of
> modern psychology and psychiatry. I would say that since some
> dictionaries now list it as a medical word, it's been co-opted as an
> excuse for the psychs to gain authority over its discovery and treatment.
I would argue that while it may have had a history, its meaning was not
truly fulfilled until that advent.
> Paul
--
- Isaiah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:13:05 EDT