Leder you need to make up your mind. Is the blood test objective with mono or subjective? If it's objective, then the doctor would've found Mono floating around (which they didn't) and your original argument would stand (which it doesn't). If it's subjective (which it is) then it process to diagnois Mono is similar to the process to diagnois a mental disorder. Which means your whole "Symptoms DOES NOT equal disease." argument against mental disorders is wrong (which it is). Got it?

That doesn't make any sense...mono doesn't just float around. The test is of course objective because it finds that due to your white blood cell count and heterophile antibodies that you have mono. A blood test can determine that you would have mono even if you had zero symptoms. The symptoms does not equal disease argument is fact, not an argument. If I told a doctor that I suffered from headaches, fatigue, trouble sleeping, and a fever...can a doctor make the correct diagnosis based on those symptoms? Of course not because those symptoms can be found with any number of viruses or diseases. It is only through an objective test that the correct diagnosis will be made.

Ok Leder this is hopeless I'm sick of trying to have to hold your hand through this. I don't even think you understand your own arguments. I never said mono floats around. You were the one who said it can be found via blood test which is not true. It's just one more piece of evidence for the doctor to make his or her diagnosis. Many things can cause an increase in white blood cells. The presence of heterophile antibodies can also (while unlikely) be attributed to leukemia, cytomegalovirus, Burkitt’s lymphoma, rheumatoid arthritis, and viral hepatitis. However, if the blood test shows an increase in white blood cells, and maybe the presence of heterophile antibodies, and the patient suffers from fatigue, fever, etc. Then most likely, they have mono. Why because theirs a strong correlation between those symptoms, an elevated white blood cell count, and a person who has mono. Now, if a person washes his hands 20 times a day, and has lower than normal serotonin levels, they probably have OCD. Why? Because theirs a strong correlation between those symptoms and lower serotonin levels. It's the same thing.

Thus this:


Doesn't hold water.

On that note, I'm done wasting my time.

OK lederuvdapac, Psyclist has already done an excellent job of exposing your exceptionally limited knowledge of the medical profession, I can add a dozen more cases to that, for example diagnosies of cancer when tumours are too small or too obscurely placed to show up on scans, yet the diagnosis is made summation of by available symptoms without confirmation. This is critical, and happens quite often, as in some kinds of cancer by the time the tumor shows up on a scan, the patient is doomed.

So, FIRSTLY, diagnosis by symptoms happens ALL THE TIME.

But SECONDLY, EVEN IF you were right (which you are not) so what? I pointed out that deduction through impact of observation happens all the time in all sciences. You are basing your VAST asertion that psychiatric illnesses do not exist on this one flawed principle, that you cannot diagnose through observation and symptoms. Firstly, thats wrong in the case of mental ilness, as hasbeen pointed out (you never addressed that) Secondly, that happens all the time in regular medicine as well. But MOST importantly, what on earth makes you think that blatant assertion is correct in the first place?

Name me ANY of the modern sciences, ANY OF THEM, that does not have a huge portion of its analysis made through deduction based on impact and observation. It is an industry standard. What on earth makes you believe that it is somehow 'invalid' in medicine, EVEN IF you were right on your facts on the issue, which you are not?

Lastly, though you have been wrong on nearly all assumptions so far, you also neatly skipped over Psyclist's statement (which can be verified though 5 seconds use of Google) that your entire bsis of argumentation is wrong, chemical imbalances in the brain can be detected through PET and MRI scans, an OBJECTIVE scanning result.

Of course, Szasz would not know that, as his medical degree predates both these technologies by about 40 years...



Its funny, you keep asserting that I am dodging questions, but never point them out. On the other hand I see you trying to ignore a lot of facts on your side...

As for Szasz and his links to scientology... does it automatically make him wrong? Well, lets call it diagnosis through observation shall we?

-He has been proposing his theories for about 30 years, during which time his discuipline has advanced WAY beyond where it was when he went to school.
-The planetary medical community still seems utterly unanimous in its verdict he is completely wrong.
-His facts, as psyclist has shown, are out of date and now just wrong on the face of it.
-He has strong links with a religious/cult organisation which for religious reasons refuses to accept the existence of mental illness.

Based on that... what else are we to deduce but he is a nutter?



Ah, so in your expert psychiatric opinion then, not everyone with very low seratonin levels will be depressed. Thank you for that vast uneducated assertion.

You are also, of course, completely wrong. If you have very low seratonin levels in your body, you WILL feel depressed. Ever taken Extacy? it increases seratonin in your body atrificially, giving people a euphoric high, but the next day the body self-regulates and the 'E hangover' is depression and doldrums caused by low seratonin levels.

The problem of course is in SOME people seratonin does not self-regulate, and stays at exceptionally low levels all the time.

Not to repeat myself, but this debate would go a LOT better if you understood any of the very basic fundamentals of psychiatry. It seems every single post has two or three basic obvious factual erors which would not happen if you spent an day reading ANY texbook of basic guidebook on the subject. Yet it is on these errors that you base your dismissal of an entire established branch of medicine...



So, while we are exploring the many various different ways in which you are wrong, here is another one. Your logic itself makes no sense at all, as you are using an apparent lack of definite proof positive to prove a negative.

Your basis is that we do not have the technology at the moment to measure chemical imbalances in the brain, (which we can, and which is irrelevant to modern medicine, but regardless) therefore there ARE NO chemical imbalances in the brain. That logically makes no sense.

Imagine you and I are standing beside a hill. I say "I think there is a town over that hill. Look, there is smoke from the town, and light pollution from the town. I can hear crowd noises and cars honking from the town. There are roads heading around the hill towars the town, and signs on the road pointing o the town."

"Ah, you say, but as you cannot see the town, you cannot positively verify the existence of said town. Therfore (and this is where your logic goes off the rails) because you cannot POSITIVELY verify the existence of the town, I assert there is POSITIVELY NO TOWN THERE."

Your position, EVEN IF YOUR BASIC FACTS WERE RIGHT (which they are not) makes no sense in the slightest.



But, in the end, your shifting, illogical argument comes down to this on simple point...




Wow. I mean seriously here.

You are comparing a man who is SO paranoid and delusional he will (if unmedicated) cut out every visible vein on his body with any sharp available object... with smoking?

You are saying this man is fine, he has no disease? You are saying its not like 'he has no control over his state'?

I think we have effectively come to the end of rational debate. If you SERIOUSLY and HONESTLY cannot see the difference between these (and hundreds of thousands of similar cases) despratly sick people, entirely treatable by proper medication, and somebody who SMOKES... then Logic and reason clearly have no value here.


Let me put it another way.

The Medical Community thinks these people should be prevented from mutilating and killing themselves based on a paranoid delusion by medication which makes them normal or close to normal again.

The families and friends of the ill person thinks these people should be prevented from mutilating and killing themselves based on a paranoid delusion by medication which makes them normal or close to normal again.

The victim themselves, once they regain insight through medication, generally thinks they should be prevented from mutilating and killing themselves based on a paranoid delusion by medication which makes normal or them close to normal again.

The state and the law thinks these people should be prevented from mutilating and killing themselves based on a paranoid delusion by medication which makes them normal or close to normal again.


But you, Lederuvdapac, you on the outside, who knows nothing about psychiatry even the most basics of the discipline, and who has no experience whatsoever with mental illness, YOU will teach them all the error of their ways, because according to you, irrationally and compulsively hacking yourself to death because of the paranoid delusion their are snakes inside you is EXACTLY like making an informed, rational decision to light a cigarette.

Riiiiight....

Ok psyclist, you are nitpicking matters that arent even there. You are basically saying my point which is that symptoms alone does not equal disease because once again, you can have symptoms but no disease as well as have a disease but no symptoms. What makes the difference are the signs found during that blood test. If one has an increase in white blood cells and the appearance of heterophile anitbodies than those signs indicate some sort of disease. Then as you say the doctors use the symptoms to determine which disease a person has. What we have been arguing (or atleast i thought we were arguing) was making diagnosis for disease on symptoms alone which i say is incorrect. One can complain of symptoms similar to that of mono but it is not until a blood test is taken that those symptoms are verified as that of mono because those symptoms can mean any number of diseases.



And i believe that is wrong. Symptoms does not equal disease. Symptoms accompanied by objective signs equals disease.


We are not talking about other forms of science. I am discussing pathology and psychiatry. Here is the wikipedia entry for pathology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathology


Pathology studies diseases as abnormalities of the cell, tissue, or organs and are literal diseases. Psychiatry deals with metaphoric diseases.



http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/fores.htm


The question that is being continually dodgded is whether the chemicals in our brain determine our state or whether our state determine our chemicals. I contend that it is outside factors that determine our feelings and not our brain.



I am sorry Vermillion but i disagree with you and all I ask is PROVE IT. Just because your serotonin levels are low does not mean that you are necessarily depressed and I have no idea how you could some to such a conclusion. But again, the crux of the argument is...are you depressed because your serotonin levels are low OR are your serotonin levels low because you are depressed?

How about a for instance? If someone with low serotonin levels and is considered clincally depressed wins the lottery...would they remain depressed because of their low serotonin levels? One would deduct that they would feel better being they just won a large some of money. I contend that it is our feelings that affect our brain chemicals and not our chemicals that affect my mood.

If you argue that people's behaviors are determined only on the basis of our brain's chemicals then you discount any free will. You discount anyone being responsible for their actions because their behavior is biologically based and of no fault of the person.




Of course nobody can prove a negative and I cannot prove the non-existance of mental illness just as nobody can prove the non-existance of God. But what one can do is provide logical arguments to debase something that has yet to be proven.


Is the analogy really so far-fetched? In one case there is a person who wants to guage out their eyes and/or kill themselves. In the other case there is someone who knows the consequences of smoking and does it anyway. We as a society have decided that if someone wants to kill themselves through years of smoking that it is acceptable, but when it comes to killing themself through violence that it is wrong. Thats a moral judgment.

I am not saying he is fine, i am saying he doesnt have a disease. Schizophrenia is something you do, cancer is something you have. And i have no problem being treated if they willingly consent to the treatment. My only problem occurs when one is coerced and/or forced into treatment. Disagreement with a psychiatrist on the treatment is not a sign of disease but rather a hallmark of our values and rights.



What's normal? You mean normal behavior? You mean behavior that is acceptable to society and wild talk and self inflicted harm is not acceptable behavior. The Medical Community is enforcing a form of social control similar to that of theocracies in the past. People should not be incarcerated if they have committed no crime and have had no due process. They should not be incarcerated on what they might do because not every person who is schizophrenic is also a criminal. Your argument of preventing crime does not translate to our state and our constitution. You are innocent until proven guilty. You have to be accused of a crime to be proven guilty.



Pretty impressive huh?

Vermillion:

I never said that there are not humans among us who are rather seriously mentally disturbed. I simply object to the pretense involved in the notion that we even begin to understand why that is so. I also object to treating as mentally ill, persons that we call "narcissists," "passive-aggressives," "dependent personalities." And I am otherwise aware that you don't escape the consequence of violating our penal law because you are narcissistic, passive-aggressive, and/or a dependent personality. But unless you live in Southern California and can rely on In Re Kimberly F. as your controlling precedent, some might want to take away your kids and/or refuse to give them back because some human claiming some expertise reports that you are a narcissist, passive-agressive, a dependent personality and, to borrow from Justice Sills, of all things, generally conservative. And I am aware of the existence of the opinion in In Re Kimberly F. precisely and only because I handled, on appeal, another case wherein a mother's children had been taken away and given to third-parties because some witch doctor applied unflattering labels to her personality ["a histrionic personality with narcissistic traits"]. And going back to our other discussion on that other thread, just who would you be to decide that my empathy, or the lack thereof, has anything to do with my being "disordered"? That's not science, that's moral judgment. And so you won't find discussion of empathy or the lack thereof in your and my biochemistry class. But you will find such a discussion in your and my philosophy, comparative religion, and/or ethics class[es].

Now on to PTSD. It is all in their mind. And that is why two people can both watch their best friend's head get blown off by a round of enemy artillery and wind up with one of them being very nearly non-functional while the other, though experiencing severe mental distress and pain when recalling the death of the friend, can otherwise hold a job, have a decent marriage, and otherwise raise his children. And maybe the difference between the two is not biochemistry influencing mental state, but the reverse, i.e., atheist you has no consolation in the way of our decapitated friend, since he's just dead and gone forever, and we don't get to change that reality, but religiously superstitious me has the mental construct and consolation of believing that while tragic and rather painful, at least our friend confessed Yeshua as kyrios and believed that God raised him from the dead, and so he will be saved, and thus, there is hope, since whatever else might be said, he is not gone forever and we will one day meet him again. And so you are a non-functioning wreck while I am able to carry on. Or are you claiming that one's moral and/or philosophical construct cannot possibly influence one's reaction to the observation of wordly events?

Which brings us to narcissism. My just stated remarks re PTSD explain, entirely, why the "prognosis is poor" and why medications won't work for narcissism. And that because, again, the problem isn't biochemistry, it's moral/philosophical construct, and there simply isn't a drug invented that will cause you to believe that other human beings have an instrinsic value and ought to be treated accordingly.

And if you want THE textbook example of "circular reasoning," the DSM-IV is just your cup of tea. More specifically, this fictional but nonetheless all too real example of courtroom examination and testimony in response to the same:

"Judge: Why does the defendant hear voices?
Psychiatrist: Because he has schizophrenia.
Judge: How do you know that he has schizophrenia?
Psychiatrist: Because he hears voices."

We call that circular reasoning and it is, as you presumably know, a logical fallacy. Variants run as follows:

"Judge: Why does mother lack empathy?
Psychiatrist: Because she's suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder.
Judge: How do you know that mother is suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder?
Psychiatrist: Because she lacks empathy, has visions of unlimited success, is looking for the ideal mate, and is otherwise downright arrogant and haughty."

"Judge: Why is mother overly concerned with her physical appearance?
Psychiatrist: Because she's suffering from a histrionic personality disorder.
Judge: How do you know that mother is suffering from a histrionic personality disorder?
Psychiatrist: Because she's overly concerned with her physical appearance, continually seeks to be the center of attention, and more often than not can be found to be presenting with a dramatized expression of her emotions.

You call it "science." Justice Jorgensen and I call it "psychobabble."

And then there's this [ http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/security/vso0230.htm ]:

"The psychiatrist conducted a one-hour clinical interview followed by the written Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) and the Millon Clinical Multitaxial Inventory (MMCI). The MMPI scores were within normal limits, but the test showed possible evasiveness.(3) Transcript at 15. The MMCI was consistent with a possible narcissistic personality disorder. The psychiatrist stated that based upon his evaluation, he believes that the respondent minimized her alcohol consumption. He based his diagnosis of alcohol abuse/dependence upon what he assumed was her regular consumption of alcohol to excess, the two DUI arrests and resulting legal consequences, and the times that her memory of events was "fuzzy." Transcript at 17.

In contrast, the respondent's personal physician testified that the respondent does not have an alcohol problem. Transcript at 77. He stated that he has seen the respondent on a regular basis for about ten years. He sees her frequently for allergy-related treatments and gives her physicals every year or so. He has also observed her in social situations where she has consumed alcohol. Transcript at 72-73, 77-78. Her liver function tests have always been normal, and she has not avoided discussing her alcohol consumption. Transcript at 73-74, 79
***
The two medical professionals who testified differ radically in their diagnoses. Normally, I would tend to find the testimony of a psychiatrist who is trained in recognizing alcohol problems to be more persuasive than that of a general physician.(5) However, in this case, the respondent's physician knows her very well. He has observed her consuming alcohol first hand on a number of occasions, and he has monitored her physical condition for ten years. Under these circumstances, I find that he is as qualified to render an opinion on her condition than the DOE psychiatrist who saw her only once. After hearing both of them testify in detail and after carefully considering the testimony of the respondent and her supervisor, I find the physician's opinion to be more persuasive.
***
Furthermore, I am troubled by the psychiatrist's apparent use of circular reasoning. He assumes that the respondent has an alcohol problem, notes that she either does not consider her alcohol consumption to be a significant problem or admit consequences that he believes should follow from the problem, and then uses her denial to support his assumption that she has an alcohol problem that she is minimizing. For example, the psychiatrist finds support for his opinion from the respondent's denying that her family and friends have criticized her alcohol intake. Transcript at 34-35, 56, 66. In this regard, I note that her supervisor and physician have not criticized her use of alcohol. He also found support for his diagnosis from the fact that while the respondent is concerned with the lapse of judgment that led to her driving under the influence, she does not admit that she has an ongoing problem with alcohol. Transcript at 14, 28-29. The psychiatrist does not appear to consider that his underlying assumption, i.e., that the respondent has minimized the amount she drinks, may be incorrect. For this reason, he appears to lack the objectivity necessary to be believable in this case."

Yeah, so your denial that you are minimizing is evidence that you do in fact have the problem. There's no way out of that one for you. And I will otherwise never ever forget a child protective permanent plan hearing wherein my client, the mom, when the truth finally won out by way of the testimony of a third party who hadn't been exactly easy to locate, well, my client took the pen and yellow pad that I had given her to write notes, questions, etc., and she used the pen to write on one page of that yellow pad, in rather large letters, about three-quarters of the way through my direct examination of the third-party in question, AM I IN DENIAL NOW? No, my dear friend, you were not then, and never were, in denial. It was just that the witch doctor and his congregation never considered that their underlying assumption[s] might be incorrect. And so they were never objective and said that you were in denial for believing in a state of affairs, both past and present, that was contrary to that state of affairs, both past and present, posited by them. I still have that yellow pad with her note, and probably always will. And my use of "congregation" is wholly intentional, since if you believe in witch doctors, then religiously superstitious me is no more superstititious or given to myth than you, and since they call the crowd that I'm in, a "congregation"....

And that's my bias. You've got your uncle and other relative while I've got a mother and the witch doctor. And speaking of bias, you and I also have another bias, respectively. Yours is simply that since atheist you denies the existence of what I call the human spirit, then the answer must be biochemical process/reaction or some other natural process, since, by definition, there cannot be anything else. And so you said that I would probably say that PTSD is all in one's mind. I did. And that's because of my bias. I posit the existence of the human spirit as an initial premise, and I then posit that this human spirit has the ability, capacity, whatever, to construct a morality/philosophy to live by. And I then further posit that though I simply don't have a clue as to how the thing works [and there is no entry on the HowStuffWorks site to help in this regard], the human spirit can and does indeed affect the material/physical, or if you prefer, the biochemical [maybe I ought to throw in, bioelectrical, as well]. And so I view the PTSD that attends certain so-called traumatic events as largely depending on just what the trauma was, just what one's moral/philosophical construct happened to be at that time, and to round it out with the all-inclusive, please, have seat, and tell me your life history, and what you've believed and thought along the way.

As concerns who is right and who is wrong, and also going back to my initial objection re some pretending that we have a clue, again, Sir John [ http://hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/Weinberg/Maddox.htm ]:

"A Catalogue of Ignorance
***
The catalogue of our ignorance must also include the understanding of the human brain, which is incomplete in one conspicuous way: nobody understands how decisions are made or how imagination is set free. What consciousness consists of (or how it should be defined) is equally a puzzle. Despite the marvelous successes of neuroscience in the past century (not to mention the disputed relevance of artificial intelligence), we seem as far from understanding cognitive process as we were a century ago."

That was written for and appears in the December 1999 edition of Scientific American. And, as stated, nobody, repeat, nobody, understands how decisions are made. And what does it mean to be conscious? And so I object to the pretense involved in claiming that we have a clue. And I most certainly don't think that we ought to be taking children away from their mothers and refusing to give them back because some witch doctor pretends that he's all that and that he has a clue. We are otherwise supposed to be taking away children from their mother, and refusing to give them back, only when there exists what we call evidence of harm to a child, such as a broken arm, a cigarette burn, the child's having been sexually abused, and/or, for the witch doctors, should there exist injury to the psychological capacity of a child as is evidenced by a substantial impairment in the child's ability to function [see the definition of "harm" at HRS 587-2].

And the non-thinking that is evident with far too many claiming to know is nowhere more evident than in the recitation made by the witch doctor in question to the effect that, in this alleged case of physical abuse to the children by mom, it was highly significant that in cases of parental physical abuse of children, that most of such children nevertheless want to be reunited with the parent[s], but this mom's children do not want to do so. That was reported by the witch doctor in order to support the claim that the physical abuse in that case must have been extreme, i.e., so extreme that whereas most kids physically abused by mom and/or dad want to go home nonetheless, these kids don't. Of course, what NEVER crossed the minds of the witch doctor and his congregation, as made plain by their examination under oath in a court of law, was that maybe there was something else at work, i.e., if kids beaten by mom still want to be with mom, and these kids don't want to be with mom, then maybe physical abuse by mom is not the issue. And so, as I subsequently stated in a post-hearing memorandum, although Sir Isaac Newton was concerned primarily if not solely with the explanation of physical phenomenon, maybe we should nevertheless apply that law named after him, to wit, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and since mom left home in order to obtain treatment for her severe depression and didn't even tell the kids she was leaving before she left, then maybe the kids feel abandoned by mom, and maybe that explains why they are angry and don't want to go home. And lo and behold, when a subsequent battle in the war concluded and we finally got access to one of the children's school records, well, guess what the middle child told another witch doctor? "Since my mom doesn't want to have anything to do with me, I don't see why I should have anything to do with her." Yes, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and it wasn't mom's alleged or purported extreme physical abuse that explained why she and her kids defied the norm and/or the expected, it was instead that physical abuse by mom wasn't the problem. And to top off the travesty of all travesties, the witch doctor in question later admitted that he went nearly two years without telling any of my client's children just why their mother had left home in the first instance. I tried to figure out why, or how, that could be so, then I gave up, since it didn't really matter at that point, at least for the concerned mother and her children, and there was also the matter of my ever-increasing anti-social notions [something about how a large caliber round to the brain stem would solve the problem, and irrevocably so, posed by the particular witch doctor in question].

Now, for a more recent gem, brought to you courtesy of the quacks who think that biochemical process/reaction explains why you care about other humans while Ted Bundy did not, from a summary of a psych eval:

"Her presentation during the clinical evaluation suggested a lack of emotional connection to her daughter..."

Then we find, in the next paragraph, when detailing the reasons why the prognosis is purportedly poor, even with treatment and services:

"Furthermore, although she may comply with recommendations and treatment, this appears to be primarily motivated by her desire to reunite with her daughter and does not necessarily imply her ability or willingness to apply these skills to resolve the safety issues."

Uhhhh, excuse me, doctor, but now that I've put on my garlic necklace, grabbed hold of the stake and hammer, and have otherwise called the Pope to arrange for your exorcism, didn't you just say that her presentation suggested a lack of emotional connection to her daughter? But did you not also say that she may very well comply with recommendations and treatment owing to her desire to reunite with her daughter? Doctor, which is it, either she lacks an emotional connection to her daughter, or she has an emotional connection to her daughter and such explains why she will comply with recommendations and treatment, correct? Is there some reason for mom wanting to reunite with her daughter other than her having an emotional connection with her daughter? Your report fails to recite any such reason, correct? And, doctor, such failure on your part is best explained by the absence of any such reason, correct? Thank you very much doctor, I'll be wearing the garlic, but keeping the stake and hammer on hold until we see what the good priest can accomplish by way of your exorcism.

And that, from my 15 years of legal practice, is about par for the course. Not only do we have the circular reasoning of all circular reasoning that is inherent in the whole scheme of things, we also have, more often than not, these supporting rationales that stand in a rather complete contradiction. And, usually, it isn't until near the end of the line of questioning that we get past the deer in the headlights look from the witch doctor in question.

And let me go back to histrionic personality disorder. Overwhelmingly affects women, at least according to the APA. You call it science, I call it, instead, the sexism of the APA. We find that it is mostly females who suffer from a purported histrionic personality disorder precisely because most of us were socialized to view women as passive creatures [as it were]. And so when they are not, they are histrionic. And the same more or less can be said of narcissistic personality disorder. Who complains that women focus too much on their looks? Men? And so, because such focus is not in our male mental construct, female you is now "disordered." Or as some have put it [ http://www.thedoctorslounge.net/psychiatry...ty_disorder.htm ]:

"Personality disorders are a form of mental disorder. They are characterised by a long-term pattern of serious behavioural differences that significantly affect the functioning of the individual in personal and social situations. Personality disorders are represented on Axis II of the DSM-IV, and are particularly controversial because they often seem sexist, and because their comorbidity rate is excessively high, indictative of poor categorization."

And [ http://www.jc.edu/users/belanger/Chaptereight.htm ]:

"<Editor's conjecture: sexist bias leads to under-dx of Anti-Social personality disorder in women, Histrionic personality disorder in men.>"

Or maybe there's no under-dx of histrionic personality disorder in men but rather an over-dx of the same in women, and that because we are socialized to expect male machismo and female passivity.

And here is an interesting comment from that last site:

"<Editor's opinion: most personality disorders probably arise when subtle neurological and possibly neuroendocrinological diatheses are impacted by psychosocial trauma. Such trauma may be especially prone to create personality disorder if it occurs during early critical developmental periods.> "

First item, what on earth is psychosocial trauma? Going back to our example, you and me having the singular pleasure to observe our good friend's head being blown to bits by an enemy artillery round, assuming that none of our friend's head [and/or its contents] makes physical contact with our persons and doesn't otherwise smell, then all that you and I will be on the receiving end of is some displacement waves and some photons of light. Are those displacement waves and photons of light the psychosocial trauma? If not, what was their effect? And so we all know, doctor, could you please take this piece of chalk and write up there on that blackboard, your description of the natural process that goes from incoming displacement waves and photons of light to a subtle impact on my neurological and neuroendocrinological tendencies? You see the problem, yes? Photons of light are photons of light, and displacement waves are displacement waves. And blocks of sodium are blocks of sodium, and never mind that we just found that one block out there in the wild where it had been left to its own devices for God only knows how long, whereas this other block over here, well, we've talked to it, caressed it, and otherwise tried to show it all the love that we could, but no matter, we'll still get the same rather violent response when we throw each of the blocks into that metal bin containing water that's right over there. So please tell us, doctor, what process gets us from incoming displacement waves and photons to an effect on our neurological tendencies?

And sticking with neurological tendencies, don't know who it was, but I read someone saying something about how no one is saying that any of this removes morality from the equation. Going back to what I said above, how could it not remove morality from the equation? Deny the existence of the human spirit, and all that's left is energy and "frozen" energy [matter]. And sticking with incoming displacement waves and photons leading to psychosocial trauma leading to impact on my neurological tendencies, just who on earth would you be to claim that it is nothing other than the purely/wholly arbitrary and capricious to label this biochemical process/reaction, moral, and this other biochemical process/reaction, immoral? So absent the manual on moral and immoral biochemical processes/reactions, please understand that your classification of biochemical processes/reactions into the categories of moral and immoral is artificial and capricious in the extreme, as a matter of fact, I cannot even imagine, and thus cannot posit, a more extreme artificial construct [as it were], but hey, that's just me, and for all I know, I'm "disordered". And then there's the related matter of, while you won't get off because you're narcissistic, excuse me, suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder with histrionic traits, if one could show that NPD w HT played a causal role in the commission of the criminal offense, how would it comport with notions of due process of law for us to criminalize conduct otherwise described as mentally disordered? Or should I simply ask, how does one make criminal an illness?

So why not simply say, as I would and do, that there are indeed people among us who are, at least according to us, suffering from a rather serious mental health problem, but we are simply ignorant when it comes to knowing just what the exact problem is, and how and/or why it could be so. And so there is no mistake, the humans among us that I am talking about are those humans who otherwise have no objective, or if preferred, present with no observable evidence of organic brain injury and are not otherwise suffering from what some call a "general medical condition".

You have otherwise made a rather extraordinary leap from the world of logic, as someone else pointed out. Fine, we give meds to schizophrenics. They seem to work. Does that make the problem biochemical? Or does the psychotropic medication serve to mask the underlying problem? I mean, my urine won't be all over me and the floor so long as that catheter is in place, but that doesn't mean that the catheter has cured my problem in having zero bladder control.

And I further object to equating physical illness with mental illness. From the Surgeon General's report [chapter 2 of the same]:

"The precise causes (etiology) of most mental disorders are not known. But the key word in this statement is precise. The precise causes of most mental disorders—or, indeed, of mental health—may not be known, but the broad forces that shape them are known: these are biological, psychological, and social/cultural factors.

What is most important to reiterate is that the causes of health and disease are generally viewed as a product of the interplay or interaction between biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors. This is true for all health and illness, including mental health and mental illness."

But is it true? How much of the sociocultural explains why you are losing all cellular integrity and otherwise turning to mush? Don't we only need confirm that you've been exposed to the Ebola virus? And that sore throat that you've got? Funny, but I don't recall the doctor asking you about your childhood, etc., but I do recall the doctor making a visual examination of those parts of your throat that she could see and otherwise taking that swab and sending it to the lab to see what grows. Or in the CPS context, that spiral fracture of the little one's right humerus, well, no need for any sociocultural analysis here, since it seems safe to say that someone grabbed the little one rather violently by the arm and did some rotating, or should I say that it seems that the torsional force applied/created was more than the little one's arm could bear. And re the posterior rib fractures, seems that someone also did some compressing of the child's rib cage and since the laws of physics dictate that something had to give, well, here we are and here you can see the posterior rib fractures on the child's x-ray films. But to find out whether or not you've got your own version of the purported narcissistic personality disorder, we ought to be talking to you for days, we ought to talking to your friends, etc., and then we're going to have to make a wholly subjective judgment, based on our own, and not some universal, sociocultural vision of what is "normal" and/or "healthy". And that isn't science. It is, as Justice Sills reported, mere name-calling.

Now on to serotonin. Psyclist, you here? Strong correlation. Does not mean causation. As a matter of fact, are you certain that it is even correlation? Your low serotonin levels could be a correlate of, a cause of, or an effect of some as yet unidentified "agent" that ails you. And let me bring depression into this, since that is the example used by the Surgeon General. Does stress cause depression? Or does depression cause stress? Or are they both caused by some other and as yet unidentified and unposited agent/factor? Now back to serotonin. Is the decreased level of serotonin the cause or the result? I mean, isn't the non-pharmalogical cure, say in the case of one with an obsessive fear of germ-ridden doorknobs, to have you touch any and all doorknobs while you try your best to refrain from engaging in your compulsive habit of trying to get clean by washing your hands immediately after contact with that germ-ridden doorknob? The reason why such a treatment regimen works is simply that the fear of germ-ridden doorknobs is irrational and by you not washing every time you've touched a doorknob, and you also not getting sick, your brain learns and understands that doorknobs are nothing to be afraid of and/or obsessed about. And it is precisely the recognized efficacy of such a treatment regimen that causes me to believe that the problem is indeed all in one's mind. I can't explain why you woke up one day only to believe that death lurked on every doorknob, but I can understand why you were cured, i.e., as stated, your brain got the message, from your not dying or otherwise falling ill after touching doorknobs on a repeated basis, that there is nothing to fear from doorknobs and so no reason to obsess, and thus no more complusion to get clean. And what concerns me in the extreme is that humans are basically lazy, and it is far easier to take a magic pill than it is to confront one's fear of germ-ridden doorknobs. And then there's the rest of us. We are lazy too. And so we'll give you the pill rather than devote the time and effort involved in trying to get you to confront and overcome your obsession. And so I'm worried and concerned that you'll be on those pills for life and will have otherwise missed the opportunity to prove to yourself just how courageous you can be.

Which brings us to schizophrenia. Had a human come into the office once who claimed that the CIA had implanted some device in his mouth. As soon as my skepticism became apparent, the human in question offered to take out the device and show it to me. To which I responded, in the hope of reaching the logical part of his brain, well, if you can take out the device to show me, why don't you take it out of your mouth and then throw the device in that trash can over there [with me pointing to the trash can in question]. You do that and you will not only no longer have the device in your mouth, you'll also have the added benefit of not needing a lawyer. And maybe it's just deluded me, but I thought that for a moment there, I saw the light go in the human in question's brain, or at least that's what the look in the eyes conveyed to me, but then with a lean forward and a blink of the eyes, well, let me just say that our conversation ended at that point.

And not that I want Wikipedia to serve as the authoritative source, but that site reports:

"The diagnostic category of schizophrenia has been widely criticised as lacking in scientific validity or reliability, consistent with evidence of poor levels of consistency in diagnostic practices and the use of criteria. One alternative suggests that the problems and issues making up the diagnosis of schizophrenia would be better addressed as individual dimensions along which everyone varies, such that there is a spectrum or continuum rather than a cut-off between normal and ill. This approach appears consistent with research on schizotypy and of a relatively high prevalence of psychotic experiences and delusional beliefs amongst the general public.

The wider anti-psychiatry movement also often argues against the diagnosis, for example arguing that classifying unusual thoughts, feelings and behaviors as a medical illness in this way is unscientific, stigmatizing, and legitimises the social control of people whom society finds undesirable but who have committed no crime.
***
It has been argued that the diagnostic approach to schizophrenia is flawed, as it relies on an assumption of a clear dividing line between what is considered to be mental illness (fulfilling the diagnostic criteria) and mental health (not fulfilling the criteria). Recently it has been argued, notably by psychiatrist Jim van Os and psychologist Richard Bentall, that this makes little sense, as studies have shown that many people have psychotic experiences and have delusion-like ideas without becoming distressed, disabled or diagnosable by the categorical system (potentially because they interpret their experiences in more positive ways, or hold more pragmatic and commonly accepted beliefs).

Of particular concern is that the decision as to whether a symptom is present is a subjective decision by the person making the diagnosis or relies on an incoherent definition (for example, see the entries on delusions and thought disorder for a discussion of this issue). More recently, it has been argued that psychotic symptoms are not a good basis for making a diagnosis of schizophrenia as "psychosis is the 'fever' of mental illness — a serious but nonspecific indicator".

Perhaps because of these factors, studies examining the diagnosis of schizophrenia have typically shown relatively low or inconsistent levels of diagnostic reliability. Most famously, David Rosenhan's 1972 study, published as On being sane in insane places, demonstrated that the diagnosis of schizophrenia was (at least at the time) often subjective and unreliable. More recent studies have found agreement between any two psychiatrists when diagnosing schizophrenia tends to reach about 65% at best. This, and the results of earlier studies of diagnostic reliability (which typically reported even lower levels of agreement) have led some critics to argue that the diagnosis of schizophrenia should be abandoned."

And not that I share the same concern to the same degree as our thread-starter, but this same Wikipedia article also reports:

"The diagnostic approach to schizophrenia has also been opposed by the proponents of the anti-psychiatry movement, who argue that classifying specific thoughts and behaviors as an illness allows social control of people that society finds undesirable but who have committed no crime. They argue that this is a way of unjustly classifying a social problem as a medical one to allow the forcible detention and treatment of people displaying these behaviors, which is something which can be done under mental health legislation in most western countries.

An example of this can be seen in the Soviet Union, where an additional sub-classification of sluggishly progressing schizophrenia was created. Particularly in the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic), this diagnosis was used for the purpose of silencing political dissidents or forcing them to recant their ideas by the use of forcible confinement and treatment. In 2000 similar concerns about the abuse of psychiatry to unjustly silence and detain practitioners of the Falun Gong movement by the Chinese government led the American Psychiatric Association's Committee on the Abuse of Psychiatry and Psychiatrists to pass a resolution to urge the World Psychiatric Association to investigate the situation in China."

And going back to what I said above about the medication simply masking the symptoms but not working the cure, please see that part of the Wikipedia article under the heading: Medication and hospitalization, which can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

And re the efficacy of those magic pills:

"The World Health Organization conducted two long-term follow-up studies involving more than 2,000 people suffering from schizophrenia in different countries, and discovered these patients have much better long-term outcomes in poor countries (India, Colombia and Nigeria) than in rich countries (USA, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Japan, and Soviet Union), despite the fact antipsychotic medication is typically not widely available in poorer countries."

Reading such as that is the precise thing that causes me to think that much of the psychotropic medication being administered is, as I related, simply masking the symptoms and not effecting a/the cure.

Oh, and lastly, psyclist, there is a difference between low serotonin levels, OCD [obsessive-compulsive disorder], and depression, on the one hand, and the blood test on the other. Or should I say that it depends on what your blood is being tested for. Take malaria. There is no guess work based on statistics, as you more or less put it. They take your blood and examine that blood-smeared slide under the microscope [with proper staining of course]. One then either observes a species of the plasmodium family of parasites taking up residence, or one does not. And in the absence of infection by Plasmodium Falciparum and its rather severe manifestation[s], most of the other symptoms of malaria can be mistaken as resulting from other illnesses, such as the flu. So they make a preliminary diagnosis [the guess work that you spoke of], but then make their final diagnosis after the results come back from the lab [they may even do another blood test two-three days later just to confirm the diagnosis]. And so, if you started out shivering, then had a fever, now you're sweating profusely while your temperature drops again, and lo and behold, the microscopic examination of that blood-smeared slide shows that Plasmodium Falciparum has indeed taken up residence, there is no doubt, and it is 100% certain that you've got a case of malaria resulting from infection by the Plasmodium Falciparum parasite.

Oh, and psyclist, as I related above, the alternative to your medication, depending on your obsession and corresponding compulsion, is to confront your obsession and prove to yourself that there's nothing to obsess and/or fear. And, as I also related, you do that by refraining from the obsession-reinforcing behavior of indulging in your compulsion.

And please compare the above hypothetical questioning and responses re personality disorders with that involving malaria:

"Judge: Why was she first shivering, then having a fever, and then sweating profusely while her temperature dropped again?
Physician: She had malaria.
Judge: How do you know that she had malaria?
Physician: Well, your Honor, malaria results from infection by a parasite of the Plasmodium family of parasites. Many of its symptoms can be mistaken for symtoms resulting from the flu, except for those extreme symptoms that usually are observed when one is suffering from an infection by the Plasmodium Falciparum species of parasite. Or more correctly, with the Plasmodium Falciparum parasite, the described symptoms are in that sequence, so it is as much a matter of the sequence as it is the extreme nature of the symptoms. So she was showing those extreme symptoms, and as is otherwise the normal practice, I obtained a blood sample from her and sent it to the laboratory for analysis. I subsequently received a report from the lab examiner attesting to his observation of the plasmodium falciparum parasite in the woman's blood, which observation was made via microscopic examination of properly stained, blood-smeared slides."

And re the magic pills masking the symptoms, for an irony of sorts, the Romans did a good job with malaria. Of course, they didn't suscribe to the germ theory of disease. As the very word, malaria, implies, the Romans believed that malaria resulted from "bad vapors," and so hence the name, mal, bad, and, aria, air, and so, malaria, bad air. The bad vapors were believed to come from fetid pools of standing water. So they eliminated the same and thereby reduced the incidence of malaria. What they didn't know was that by way of coincidence [at least in light of their knowledge at the time], the fetid pools of standing water just so happened to be the breeding ground[s] of the Anopheles mosquito, with the females of that species being responsible for transmitting the Plasmodium parasite to humans. So call it the Roman version of masking the cause of malaria and otherwise putting in place a disease prevention regimen that, lucky for them, was effective in managing the problem even though the same was more or less coincidental while they remained ignornant of just what caused some to suffer from shivering, followed by a rather high fever, followed by profuse sweating with an accompanying drop in temperature.

Lastly, for uncle and other relative, to the extent that they are trying to help other humans, then more power to them. Since it's not their compassion and caring that I have problem with, as I said, only the pretense that we think we have a clue. And we otherwise ought not to be calling disordered and/or mentally ill, those persons whose personalities don't quite mesh with what we consider to be within the "normal" range. And, sorry, but in addition to that, for the religiously superstitious among us, me included, there is this thing called sin, and an interpersonally exploitative individual isn't disordered and/or mentally ill, but instead what we call a sinner.

In the case of the twinkee defense the jury never bought that. Dan White served 5 years I believe. He got the lower sentence as far as I know because they sympathized with his crying emotional testimony and the "unfair" circumstances that led to his deadly retaliation. It was a lousy decision but then so was the OJ verdict. I don't believe any psychiatric conclusion had much to do with what the jury finally decided. They just liked and sympathized with poor old Dan.

No happy ending for Dan. Shortly after he was released he killed himself.

On the matter of mental illness I think Vermillion makes a good case for the high standards generally employed in psychiatric diagnosis and the limited circumstances where psychiatrists can employ involuntary detention and forced drug treatment. However back when Szasz was originally presenting his thesis the standards for psychiatric detention were a lot looser. I remember reading endless horror stories from the Madness Network News of folks being locked up and forcefully drugged on the say so of relatives, backed by a psychiatrist for behaviors that were not technically harmful to anybody but were simply unpleasant or disturbing to the initiating party. It had political undertones too. Mental health dissidents often equated what was going in Russia, where psychiatrists used political criteria for diagnosing citizens who complained about the system as mentally ill, as being very much part of this same process in the US and other democratic countries. And it seems there was some truth to that.

Apparently in reaction to these excesses the 3 day rule was put in and far more latitude was given to the patients choice in whether on not to recieve treatment or commit to a mental institution. Some matters that were originally in the mental health realm got pushed into the legal arena. The reaction may have led to under treatment of the mentally ill. This article seems to think so.
Some background on the matter of coercive psychiatric treatment

This thread has now been printed and posted in the nursing office as a reminder of how little the general public understands or knows about mental illness and its effects. Seriously, printed it out and passed it around the unit.

The standards from the time "one flew over the cuckoos' nest" until now, well, most that work around our field would say the pendulum has swung too far the other direction- and Leder's posts would back that up.

I can totally understand Vermillions frustration with those other posters- because it is clearly from a perspective of one that has had 0 real world clinical exposure to mental illness and places like were I work.

Personality disorders- that is the toughest one of all.

A person that makes chronically bad choices, harmful to self and others, but doesn't hve the Axis II diagnosis- instead, the Axis III stuff.

I think it is probably too complex a debate for the layman at all. Especially if you don't believe there is such a thing as 'schizzophrenia" and diminished capacity and incompetency- there is no framework to even develope a debate.

What are your feelings on the debate over the validity of mental illness as
both a defense against responsibility and as a coercive act to imprison a
person who has commit no crime?

The term mental illness is a misnomer. People have serious emotional
problems and that term creates the idea that a person doesn't have to be 100%
accountable for his actions because it's an "illness." Using mental illness as
a defense for a crime is taking the responsibility off of the shoulders of the
committer of the crime. "He killed because he has a mental disorder," as
opposed to, "He committed murder and he needs to be held accountable for that
action." It's a euphemism that has been adopted by the psychiatric community
as a way to endorse the use of drugs. Equate someone's emotional problems
to a disease and you can prescribe drugs.

Does American society need to reasses its position on mental illness and
psychiactric powers?

Heck, yes!! In a big way. This society is going downhill fast because of drug
abuse. Never mind street drugs. Psychiatric drugs are being prescribed
for problems that drugs will never cure. The pharmaceutical companies know
it and they don't care. It's about mind control and money. I mean, look at
the way people fight for their rights to do drugs. You get 'em hooked, then
the addicts that you've created will fight to their death to stay addicts. It
happens with smokers and it happens with every other kind of drug. It's very
sad.

Do you consider a mental illness a real problem or a fabrication by the
psychiactric field to justify certain behaviors?

People have real problems that have been termed "metal illness." The real
problem, though, is the exploitation of people by psychiatry. They are the
biggest quacks on the planet.

What are the implications for the US health care system either way?


Well, the pharmaceutical companies get rich, while our insurance premiums go up.
People with real emotional problems are given drugs as the solution, which only
makes matter worse. The US health care system is in great need of an overhaul.
We are not given the real truth about what causes physical OR "mental" illness.
Instead, we as a society,who put our faith in doctors of various expertise, get
completely EXPLOITED, in the name of HEALTH.

Then like this thread you need to get on to the business of education. If you or a loved one is going to find oneself in the mental health care system you are willy nilly inducted into the debate. The history of mental health treatment is a mixed one and the issue of our constitutional liberties is too much at stake here to leave the matter of involuntary mental health treatment strictly to mental health professionals. I believe Ken Kesey's 'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest' was written based on the author's personal experience from working in a mental institution.

One other factor that dp brought up is the pressure exerted by drug companies to make big profits. I remember when the side affects of Thorazine showed up both in the literature and in my own experience with friends back in earlier days. This was a depression-anxiety drug that was being highly pushed into the mental health field without the proper testing and monitoring.

My feelings about this issue probably reflect Doomed Planet's the closest. I don't disagree that there are MANY true, legitimate, psychiatric problems out there. But, I think there is too much incentive to promote the drug "cure", or perhaps, rather, not enough of an incentive to NOT prescribe drugs.

The history of psychiatry is repleat with examples of mental disorders coming and going. To name a few: Social anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, gender identity disorder, multiple personality disorder, anorexia, and chronic fatigue syndrome were once seen as rare or nonexistent, then suddenly ballooned in popularity. This is not simply because people decided to "come out", or became newly aware of their problems...It is because most mental disorders have a social component. Prozac isn't prescribed like candy because so many more people than ever before are truly clinically depressed today. Nor are children so attention deficit that one in seven boys need ritalin.

One wouldn't think that an affliction like Apotemnophilia could possibly be catchy, but it is. In fact, such disorders (even that one, weird as it is) do skyrocket and become self-fulfilling prophecies once popularized. Is anyone truly 'normal' anyway? Why does every behavior or thought these days seem to need a category?

From the book 'Girl, Interrupted' (written by a girl who had spent time in a mental health facility):

Amen.

What you're talking about with the doornobs is called cognitive behavioral therapy and is often used for the treatment of OCD or along with medication for the treatment of OCD. Now, what you either don't know or failed to mention is that studies using PET scans show that CBT will cause the same increases in levels of seritonin that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs ie: medication) do. So if the "natural" way to "fix" OCD is CBT and the natual way increases the seritonin levels too then I wonder what the underlying cause is? Hmm....

Now if you think I'm lazy for resorting to a pill, well I have a Ironman Wisconsin coming up in a few months, care to join?

There are reams of this kind of talk in the psych profession Mrs P- one of the most groundbreaking was "if there is insane and sane, how shall we know them" - and it caused a massive upheavel in the way we determine the need for inpatient treatment and commitment.

(I missed typed earlier- Axis 2 is the personality disorders and the developmentally disabled)

Here is the deal- you are lumping, like most poeple in society, a large downpour of different mental health issues (for those that don't like mental illness as a term) under one tiny umbrella in this debate.

Personality disorders are very, very hard to deal with, and very, very hard for our legal system to get a handle on as well.

Girl interupted was a major diservice to the mental health field, and to other patients as well- as might be expected of a talented writer who is also a major personality disorder. There are quite a few of those in the world, and many of them are leaders of the world.

I specifically mentioned "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" - because the guy had the same job as I do now.

I suggest another book dealing with personal responsibility of the criminal mind- called, appropriately enough "Inside the Criminal mind" By Stanton Samenow"

I too could write a book about my experiances- and it would be far, far different than his, in almost every way.

We have the debate about personal responsibilites of the mentally ill right here every day, including today.

In fact, there are newspaper articles nearly every week lately about my hospital as well!

If the person has an Axis 1 diagnosis, and they are mentally ill to the point of not being able to make decisions for themselves- that is a legit restriction of freedom.

Let me ask Leder and others these questions:

1) do you recognize that there are some forms of brain damage that stifles a persons ability to think about a certain threshold? Say, to the level of a 2 year old in cognitive and social ability- do these poeple need guardians to make decisions for them?

2) Is a person with late stage Alzheimers competent to make decisions for themselves? Remember- you can't accurately diagnose alzhiemers until you have an autopsy- until then, it is just neurological testing that gives the indication- and sometimes, it is not alzhiemers but another type of dementia or tuberal sclerosis. But are they responsible? Let's take Ronald Reagan in his last months- if he grabbed ahold of a gun, and shot somebody- should he be held accountable to the full extent of the law?

3) Do you recognize that some poeple, though legally adult in age, can not make decisions for themselves, and have to have a guardian appointed for them?


Oh, and Mrs P- most professionals in the clinical setting absolutely agree that drugs are over prescribed in a major way. Especially in children. In fact, usually, the first thing we do on our childrens ward is to give them a "med holiday"- because we are very highly trained and experianced in dealing with behavior disorders, and have the manpower and personel to deal with behaviors instead of just drugging them into a stupor.

OK, this is going to be a long post. Again it seems I am forced to provide an explanation of some of the basics of psychiatry, as it appears, and continues to appear, that many of those posting in this thread remain ignorant of even the most obvious fundamentals.

Its also long because these is a serious need to kill some of the more absurd ignorance-based assertions going on here. Please, despite the length, if the topic is of interest to you, read carefully.



Firstly, (Debate 1)there are actually two debates going on here. One seems to be about whether major psychiatric illness, like schizophrenia, actually exist, and what causes them, and how can it be measured.

Secondly (Debate 2) there is an issue about how minor mental illness is treated in society, how it is diagnosed, and how psychiatrists (apparently in cabal with drug companies) treat them.

I will deal with those in reverse order, Debate 2 then Debate 1, then I will address of some of the things KivrotHaTaavah wrote, because they were silly to the point of begging a response.


Firstly, Debate 2: how minor mental illness like phobias, ADHD, personality disorders and the like are dealt with. I should say that despite my calling them minor, some of these can be quite serious, but we will leave that aside.

The first reason for the necessary division between the topic is that some people despite my saying so STILL do not gather one simple fact about all of these ailments:

No person with one of these minor mental ailments, personality disorders or phobias will EVER, and I mean EVER be released from responsibility of a crime, forced to take medication against their will, forcibly institutionalised against their will, or in fact compelled to do anything of any kind they do not wish to.

The ONLY exception to this is in the case of minors, where they can be compelled to take drugs, but NOT EVER BY THE PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION, only by their parents.


So given that, the main problem people seem to have here is over-prescription apparently caused by evil psychiatrists in vile conspiracy with drug companies, as though every other doctor on the planet pays attention to their Hippocratic oath, except ALL psychiatrists.

This is utterly fallacious on TWO levels.

Firstly, as I said, nobody with these ailments is ever forced to take medication, it is entirely voluntary. In addition, as a general rule (especially in the past decade) psychiatrists are EXTREMELY reluctant to prescribe medication of this nature, it is the parents and the victims who clamour for some ‘quick fix’ even though none exists. Psychiatrists gain no benefit from prescribing drugs, so so much for the conspiracy; in Canada and the UK any sort of donation of fund transfer between pharmaceuticals or medical related industries and doctors is STRICTLY illegal. There is no link or relationship (let alone conspiracy) between the two, and to assert otherwise without any evidence whatsoever is silly.

There WAS a time of over-prescription of drugs like ridlin and Prozac in the 1980s (which I will deal with in a moment) and NO ORGANISATION fought harder to change that trend than the psychiatric profession. Thousands of books, tens of thousands of conference papers, medical instructions from the APA, the AMA and even comments from the surgeon general came out in the late 1980s, early 1990s to try and cut down on over-prescription of basic psychotropic drugs, and it worked, these have all been slashed, and nobody was more annoyed by this than the general public.


The second flaw with the ides that this now-over trend ‘over-prescription’ in the 1980s somehow invalidates psychiatry is that somehow this exists in a vacuum, which of course is entirely untrue. Yes, for almost a decade psychiatrists tended to err on the side of prescription than not.

For the better part of 40 years, the medical community hs been MASSIVELY over-prescribing antibiotics, the ill effects of which are now just becoming apparent.

For the better part of 20 years, the medical community has been over-prescribing painkillers, the ill effects of which are now just becoming apparent.

For the better part of 20 years, the gynaecological community has been massively over-prescribing hormones, the ill effects of which are now just becoming apparent.


The problem is not with psychiatry, the problem is with a society that got the idea that by popping a pill everything could be made better. And the body that finally put an end to this mistaken impression is not the government or the people, but the medical community itself, including psychiatrists, who like any good professional body, self-regulate. You cannot dismiss psychiatry based on over-prescription without also dismissing the entire rest of the medical community for following EXACTLY the same trend.

Look, as I have already stated, the issue of personality disorders is a tricky one because there IS no drug treatment of the root ailment, and the presentation can vary wildly, from fear of ventriloquist dummies Kivrot likes to harp on, to serious borderline personality disorsers resulting in self-harm, inability to function in society or have interpersonal relationships and so on. These can only be treated through therapy, and ONLY if the patient is willing. As I said earlier, the irony of all this is that across the world thre are tens of thousands of families who desperatly wish the medical community COULD compel relatives or friends with personality disorders into some kind of treatment, but it cannot.



Next, Debate 1: does major illness like schizophrenia exist, how is it detected and how is it treated, and are any of these real?


The opponents of this, which seem to be just Leder, as Kivrot cannot seem to make up her mind what she believes in her posts, have built a house of cards of assertions, or what is known in debating as collapsing layered assertions.

This is a set of unproven assertions upon which their principles rest. If any ONE of these assertions is false, their case falls. In this case, its easy as EVERY SINGLE ONE of these layered assertions is wrong on fact.

Here I have to repeat my thread-long mantra: this debate would be SO MUCH more productive if people just spent a bit of time learning even the vary basic of psychiatry. Without ANY knowledge of the field, the inane assertions and incorrect assumptions are sadly inevitable.

Assertion 1: There are no objective means of detecting serious mental illness.

This one is a bit odd. This has been disproven at least thrice in this thread, yet opponents keep ignoring that and repeating the same assertion. There most certainly are objective, technological methods of detecting serious chemical imbalances in the brain, that are used all the time. It can be done on living patients through PET scans and MRI scans, it can also be done during autopsies by chemical analysis of the brain.

True, MRI and PET scans cannot detect ALL imbalances, only serious ones and only ones involving certain chemicals, but then again an X-Ray cannot detect all fractures, and an MRI scan cannot detect all tumors, so that means nothing. These are objective scientific means of determining serious schizophrenia.

But there is more. There are also objective tests that can be done on patients to determine responses. I mentioned the clock-drawing test. This is not subjective, all patients with a certain kind of schizophrenia will draw the clock in a comparable (erroneous) way. This is because despite assertions to the contrary, psychiatrists understand the effects certain chemicals have on centres of the brain such as cognition, thus they test for them.

So lets put that assertion to bed: there most certainly ARE objective tests to determine some serious mental illnesses. Some are quite recent in development, but that does not make them any less factual.

Assertion 2: All the REST of medical science DEPENDS on verifiable, objective tests for diagnosis.

So here we have the assertion layer 2: since there are no objective tests for mental illness (which is wrong) and all the rest of the medical community depends on verifiable objective tests (as opposed to diagnosis by symptom) then psychiatry is fake. Except this layer 2 of assertion is wrong on fact as well. In fact, not only is it wrong, it is staggeringly wrong.

There was some talk of Mono previously. Blood tests cannot determine mono, but what they can do is called a Mono Spot, or heterophile test for the Epstein-Barr virus (Mono). The problem is that anyone who has ever had mono before will register as positive on this test. Which is why if you have serious symptoms, doctors will conduct further tests to rule out other possibilities even after the mono-spot is positive (as happened when I got mono). That is because there is NO OBJECTIVE, VERIFYABLE way to determine is a person has active mono.

But lets not stop there. Leder and Kivrot need to purchase a ticket to Israel. The family of Sharon will be thrilled to hear their uneducated opinion that there is nothing wrong with Ariel Sharon. That is because most types of brain damage if caused by a stroke or asphyxia, cannot be verified or confirmed through any test, doctors make their diagnosis based on symptomology. Even a PET scan of a person with brain damage will reveal at most depressed brain activity, which could have a dozen causes foremost among them being asleep. Unless the person is clinically brain dead, or unless the brain damage is SO severe it has literally destroyed a portion of the brain (Very rare as that tends to be fatal) there is no independent objective verifiable test to confirm brain damage, and even LESS to know exactly what the effects of any brain damage will be. Thus, according to Leder and Kivrot, there is no such thing as brain damage.

But why stop now? Have you ever had a concussion? Not according to Leder and Kivrot you haven’t. This is because there is no objective verifiable test to confirm a concussion. In major concussions there is sometimes swelling of the brain, but that can be caused by a hundred things from head trauma to virus to cerebral palsy. Concussion diagnoses are made ENTIRELY on symptomology. Thus according to Leder and Kivrot, there is no such thing as a concussion.

Lets pile them on, shall we? Even had Parkinson’s Disease? Not according to Leder and Kivrot you haven’t. There is NO test for Parkinson’s disease, which is a restriction of a brain chemical, dopamine. Parkinson’s diagnosis is done entirely based on symptomology, it is unverifiable. The example of Parkinson’s is a good one, because not only does it show another of the many diagnosies entirely through symptomology, but it also answers those who assert that there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the brain, and its all in their head. Parkinsons is a chemical imbalance in the brain (dopamine) and it is chronic, debilitating, progressive and terminal. Please, Leder and Kivrot, feel free to visit any Parkinson’s ward and let all those poor people know there is nothing wrong with them, and that they are all just fine. After all, there is no objective test for Parkinson’s, Thus according to Leder and Kivrot, there is no such thing. feel free to email Michael J Fox and tell him that its all in his mind.

Not convinced yet? Lets continue. Ever has early stage liver cancer? Not according to Leder and Kivrot you haven’t. Early liver cancer is not verifiable through any test, as the liver is too dense and the tumour is too small to differentiate from surrounding tissue. Early stage liver cancer is diagnosed entirely through symptomology. Usually by the time the tumour in the liver is large enough to be visible to X-ray or MRI, the patient is a gonner. Thus, according to Leder and Kivrot, there is no such thing as early stage liver cancer.


Lets have one more, just to put the nail in this coffin of silly assertions. This one is also my favourite.

Ever been hurt? Not according to Leder and Kivrot you haven’t. That is because there is NO MEDICAL way to detect or measure or verify pain. In cases of extreme pain, some people sometimes release adrenalin or endorphins, but that could have a hundred reasons. In some cases of extreme pain, some people go into shock, others do not, but shock could have thousands of causes. There is no objective, verifiable test to determine pain. Thus, according to Leder and Kivrot, there is no such thing as pain.


These are just a few examples, if that’s not enough, I can provide a dozen more. If you are (bafflingly) not convinced, you can add to the list of untestable illnesses diagnosed entirely from symptomology:
-Cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, Lyme disease, Meniere’s Disease, celiac disease, Alzheimer disease (except in autopsies), Arthritis, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (Mad cow)(except in autopsy), Inflammatory Bowel disease, Behçet's disease, fibromyalgia, prostatitis, Motor Nuron Disease (MND) ... shall I continue?

Medical science routinely makes diagnoses based on symptomology. There are even medical specialists (Diagnosticians) for whom that is their entire profession. You should check out the TV show ‘House’, firstly because it’s really quite good, and secondly because diagnosis on symptomology is the entire premise of the show.

I think we can call that second layer of assertions effectively annihilated.


But lets keep going, just to make sure we all understand that to debate from complete ignorance of a field is never wise.

Assertion 3: There is no treatment for major illnesses like schizophrenia, they just mask symptoms and don’t really know what they are doing.

The previous 2 assertions having been dismissed this one is almost not worth addressing, but a house of cards is never destroyed until there are no cards left standing, so lets deal with this last, (layer 3) assertion, which is not only the MOST incorrect, it is literally insulting.

Firstly, it is incorrect on fact. Much of the medication given to schizophrenics are NOT psychotropic. Period. They are chemical inhibitors or chemical additives designed to target a specific set of chemicals in the brain. Obviously, this is done because the doctors have good knowledge of which chemicals are causing which problems. Parkinson’s for example, is treated with dopamine, the chemical not naturally produced.

There is also the incorrect idea that in the treatment of clinical depression, people are just given ‘happy pills’ or some such. This is incorrect, most clinical anti-depressants target specific chemicals in the brain: amitriptyline, imipramine, doxepin, clomipramie, to name just a few. These drugs will have NO effect on someone who is depressed because of unhappy or unpleasant life circumstances. It only affects those who have severe clinical depression (which is NOT the same thing as ‘feeling depressed’) due to a lack or overabundance of certain chemicals.

Another example, a common medication in the treatment of extremely severe mood disorders is lithium. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the periodic table wil tell you lithium is just an element, a naturally occurring on in the human body to be precise. It is not a psychotropic drug. It is given to people whose extreme and uncontrollable moods are caused by a lack of naturally produced lithium in the brain.

Now there are SOME drugs given to schizophrenics which are broader base, and less targeted, these are called neuroleptics, more commonly known as antipsychotics. They are a broad based drug targeting a region of the brain and are used for short-term immediate control of some of the more severe symptoms, such as delusions, hallucinations and rational disorders. They are not ‘uppers’, they are not ‘happy pills’, they are still targeted at a series of chemicals in the brain to achieve a specific result.

They are in fact, exceedingly similar in that sense to chemotherapy: a broad based, broad effect series of drugs meant to control or stop an illness. They are also remarkably effective, sadly occasionally having some unpleasant side effects.

Interestingly, because they target certain chemicals in the brain, if given to someone who is NOT psychotic, they have a very different series of results, such a mania. This is not only a surefire way of determining real schizophrenia, it is also proof that affecting levels of chemicals in the brain can produce uncontrollable mental illness.



Lastly, for those who think there are no such things as chemical imbalances in the brain, I hope you now realise the error of your ways. But if not, let me go a step further and point out that I assume you also do not believe in the effects of illegal drugs.

Many drugs, such as Marijuana, Cocaine, LSD and Extacy all have an affect by altering the balance of brain chemicals to cause a certain pleasurable effect. This is not witch-doctory, the effects of these are studied and known.

Extacy causes increased seratonin levels causing euphoria, with the aftereffect of depressed seratonin levels causing depression and anxiety.

Marijuana contains the chemical THC, which mimics anandemide, a naturally occurring chemical in the brain causing relaxation, reduced co-ordination and altered time sense. It also can cause paranoia and tremors.

LSD is actually a grain fungus that affects dompamine receptors and adrenoreceptors in the brain, causing euphoria, halluinations and excitement, and so on.

All these drugs have their effect by causing specific chemical imbalances in the brain. So Leder and Kivrot can feel free to smoke up, hit up or shoot up all you want, as YOU know that there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the brain, and thus nothing will happen to you.

Enjoy the trip.



OK, I think that hammers that home pretty well. Lastly I want to deal with a few of the more extreme and illogical statements of KivrotHaTaavah, as they were just begging to be addressed.

Firstly, one thing unrelated to the topic:




Are you deliberately trying to get a strike here?

This is all at once, deliberately inflammatory, irrelevant, unnecessary, intended to be insulting (refer to me as ‘atheist you’, and I’ll refer to you as ‘fundamentalist zealot you’. That sound fair?), against the AD rules, oh and also wrong on fact. I’m not an atheist. You already derailed one good debate (and got humiliated doing it) by trying to turn it into religion, so with all due respect, knock it off.

Now then, on to the actually relevant parts of your post:



Again I am forced to remind other readers that you clearly have no experience with PTSD (or schizophrenia r any major mental illness), but regardless:

Come on now Kivrot, you are not even trying to make sense here. You say PTSD doesn’t exist because two people exposed to the same stimulus might react differently?

Two people exposed to the same virus present and contract differently. Are viruses fictional? Two people shot in the chest will suffer different specific injuries, and recover differently. Is trauma fictional? Two people who catch the same flu bug will suffer and recover differently. Is the flu fictional? Two people involved in the same car accident will suffer different injuries, are car accidents fictional? Two people who take identical tackles in a football game may be injured differently, are sports injuries fictional? Two people who undergo identical chemotherapy and radiation therapy for identical cancers will have different results, prognoses and side effects. Is cancer fictional? Two people who undergo the same heart operation will have different results and recovery times, is heart disease fictional?

Please.

Oh, and by the way, you base your dismissal of the entire field of psychiatry because you don’t happen to agree with the opinions of one psychologist? Her assessment of the mother in your case was a description of her actions. Decisions were not made because she had a ‘narcissistic personality disorder’, they were made because she acted narcissistically, and the judge had to decide who would be the better parent. Even if your example was in ANY way relevant to the issue at hand (which it is not) it still does not back up any of your varied random assertions.

Besides, your case as you say in the first line, is not that there are no psychiatric illnesses (which it was a few posts ago, interesting change in opinion suddenly) but that psychiatrists don’t know anything. Sadly as has been amply demonstrated you make the very common error of YOU know knowing anything about a topic, and assuming thus that others don’t know anything either. That’s not meant as an insult, it is a very common mistake many people make on a variety of issues, assuming that their limited knowledge of a field encompasses all there is to know of a field.


And the whole segment of your post dedicated to ‘displacement waves and photons’ is just weird. Are you denying external events without physical trauma can have mental repercussions?

Ever cried during a movie? Even been angry because you were dumped by a significant other?

Oh well, so much for ‘displacement waves’.


Oh and as a complete irrelevant aside, while I am correcting your plethora of factual inaccuracies: your word origin for Malaria is wrong. It does not come from classical Rome, the word was only created in the 15th or 16th centuries in northern Italy and France. Before that what is currently known as malaria was called ‘ague’ or Marsh fever. And the ‘mal aria’ of the name had no link whatsoever to standing or fetid water until the late 1700s. Not that any of that is relevant…

Vermillion, I am not going to write another long response because it is obvious we just disagree on certain things. But the one point that you dodged time and again is this:

Are chemical imbalances in the brain caused by our feelings or do our feelings cause the chemicals in our brain to change?

If my serotonin levels are low and that is obviously depression as you so claim...are environmental factors inconsequential? Are we just biological machines that have no free will? If our behaviors are determined biologically than is anyone responsible for their actions?

Yes, like reality.

I assume you are placing that call to Michael J. Fox as we speak?

But anyways...




First things first, depression and emotion are caused by a complex series of chemical interactions in the brain, of which seratonin is but one.

To your question: I have to ask here Leder. What exactly do you think the brain is? Its not muscle, nor tendons, nor bone, nor ligament...

It is a massive interconnecting series of nerves, whose role it is to transmit information, any kind of information around the body. They do this through a series of chemical exchanges. You want to move your arm? The process by which your brain tells your arm to move is called 'nurochemical', and it is a combination of chemically regulated electrical impulses.

You typing your message is a result of electrochemical reactions. Your sitting down and remaining balanced is a result of electrochemical reactions. Your heart beating and the beating being regulated is a result of electrochemical reactions.

So if you respond to stimula, be it physical, mental emotional or whatever, the response is a series of chemicals in the brain firing off and controlling electrical impulses. VOLUNTARY actions, (like moving arms or yelling) you control. INVOLUNTARY (or autonomic) actions (like the heart beating or stomach digesting) you do not.

Then there are behaviours that fall between the two. Breathing is semi-autonomic, in that it happens without your intent, but you can choose to control it. Same with blinking. In adition, certain reactions to stimulus are semi-autonomic, such as yelling out when hurt, or crying when sad. They happen automatically, but people with varying degrees of success can control it.

Emotion is one of these. You feel sad because of a response to stimulus, which causes an autonomic reaction in your brain balancing chemicals and creating 'sadness'. Yet you can control that to a certain extent, some can control it more. 'Environmental factors' as you put it are the stimuli that cause the system to react, be it intentionally or not.



That makes no sense at all. I may have mentioned this, but you should REALLY pick up a book on the basics of psychiatry (and now, brain chemistry) before expressing your opinion on matter you do not understand.

What on earth does the fact that the brain is a series of chemical interactions have to do with 'behavious being biologically determined', or us being 'biological machines'?

If you move your leg, an electrochemical signal from your brain to the various muscles caused it to move, based on a specific autonomic pattern of contraction and relaxation. Does that mean you are a 'biological machine' who had no choice but to move that leg?

NOW, have somebody break your knee, and try to move the leg. The electrochemical reactions no longer suffice, and a whole new series of chemical impulses (pain) are being transmitted back. As long as everything works together, then everything works in alignment.

Now take somebody with parkinson's disease. (which, being unverifyable through objective tests, and as it a result of chemical imbalanaces in the brain, YOU assert does not exist).

Here the problem with moving the leg does not originate in the bone or muscle, as in a broken leg, it originates in the brain, because the chemicals supposed to create the movement of the leg (both autonomic and voluntary portions) no longer function or interact properly..


None of this has ANYTHING to do with us being 'chemical robots' at all, or having specific actions 'biologically determined' at all.



Frankly, if you want to know more about exactly how the brain works, you should pick up a book and read about it.

Or, if you want to really know, you should ask a trained psychiatrist. They are the experts.