What comes to mind?

[AllseeingEye]

What comes to my mind is a human suffering. The stigmatization of the mentally ill is profound in its prominence and has devastating effects. It prevents many suffering from an illness to reach out for help and cause others to live in fear of the truth. I look at mental illness as an illness, just like any other brain disease like epilepsy; yes there are environmental triggers, but that's the same as many other brain diseases. You would likely not advise some one with cancer to refuse medicine, so why would you in the case of manic depression?

Don't take this for granted, there is another major component of this argument that deals with the ills of big pharma. Modern medicine has done wonders for humanity, such healing the sick and saving lives and extending life expectancy. But the dark side of it is the misleading propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry. Take for instance the transition of first generation antipsychotics with 2nd generation. The first generation discovered in the 70s was much less influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. These typical antipsychotics were newly discovered drugs and a breakthrough in the horrid history of treatment for the mentally ill, very affordable, but with devastating side effects. But when the pharmaceutical companies became more capitalist a new generation of drugs were discovered. This is when prescriptions drugs became a commodity and prices for these drugs skyrocketed. These atypical antipsychotics were supposedly more effective with fewer side effects. The empirical evidence of this is rooted in biased studies performed by the pharmaceutical industry itself!

In reality the psychiatric field is still really rudimentary. Its basically, "lets try and see if it works." But unfortunately I would have to admit that the drugs do have some effectiveness and has some positive influence amongst the suffering and is a preferable over natural remedies. On the other hand I have no issue with those skeptical of big pharma as they deserve much criticism.

 

[ccdan]

These mental conditions are not fantasy just because they cannot at present be precisely quantified. They do exist in spite of this.

Of course they're fantasy. They're fantasy because no one can prove their existence. As I said, they're proposed out of the blue and voted into existence by a bunch of crooks.

The criteria is only if the treatment works for that particular patient.

What treatment? Drugging people to the point that they no longer show a certain behavior/emotion is not really treatment. As I already said, using this kind of reasoning we might call rape a sexual phobia, because if we drug people enough they will no longer show opposition to uninvited sexual acts.

Sure they do.

Is e. coli an infection? How about Helicobacter pylori? Was it a disease before 1982? What changed?

Ooops, I meant HIV infection. AIDS is a certain stage of the infection.

But no, no one votes any kind of disease or infection or whatever into or out of existence in real medicine. The fact that new viruses/bacteria appear or new diseases are identified, doesn't change the fact that they're not voted or proposed out of the blue, without any scientific evidence - as it happens in psychiatry.

 

[billvon]

But no, no one votes any kind of disease or infection or whatever into or out of existence in real medicine. The fact that new viruses/bacteria appear or new diseases are identified, doesn't change the fact that they're not voted or proposed out of the blue

Yes, they are. We knew about h. pylori but did not consider it a factor in ulcers until 1982. At that point we "changed our minds" due to the work of Marshall and Warren.

Likewise, you can be thoroughly infested by e. coli and not be considered diseased. Or you can have a much smaller amount and be sick as a dog. Does this mean that e. coli is subject to the whims of doctors, who decide whether or not it's a disease by taking a vote?

without any scientific evidence as it happens in psychiatry.

That's not what happens in psychiatry. Psychiatrists do not just decide one day to make up a new disease.

 

[spidergoat]

Of course they're fantasy. They're fantasy because no one can prove their existence. As I said, they're proposed out of the blue and voted into existence by a bunch of crooks.

I can prove they exist. There is continuity in anecdotal descriptions of these conditions that transcend any particular belief system or culture. Many of them have physical symptoms, such as schizophrenia.

What treatment? Drugging people to the point that they no longer show a certain behavior/emotion is not really treatment. As I already said, using this kind of reasoning we might call rape a sexual phobia, because if we drug people enough they will no longer show opposition to uninvited sexual acts.

It is treatment for them if the condition causes them distress and dysfunction. I doubt there is a drug that would make (conscious) people comfortable with rape.

 

[ccdan]

Yes, they are. We knew about h. pylori but did not consider it a factor in ulcers until 1982. At that point we "changed our minds" due to the work of Marshall and Warren.
Likewise, you can be thoroughly infested by e. coli and not be considered diseased. Or you can have a much smaller amount and be sick as a dog. Does this mean that e. coli is subject to the whims of doctors, who decide whether or not it's a disease by taking a vote?

It doesn't matter that we considered a certain bacteria harmful or not in the past. The only thing that matters is the scientific evidence about what we consider harmful now.

There are many strands of e.coli and only a few are dangerous.

That's not what happens in psychiatry. Psychiatrists do not just decide one day to make up a new disease.

What do you know about the process of categorizing a certain behavior/emotion/etc as being a mental illness?
How does it happen?

 

[ccdan]

I can prove they exist.

Good. Let's see the scientific evidence!
For example:
Conduct disorder

a few newly introduced (in DSM V) disorders:
Binge Eating Disorder (overeat more than 12 times in 3 months and you're a loony that needs psychiatric intervention)

Grief (yup, this is a mental illness now)

There is continuity in anecdotal descriptions of these conditions that transcend any particular belief system or culture. Many of them have physical symptoms, such as schizophrenia.

This is not scientific evidence.

It is treatment for them if the condition causes them distress and dysfunction. I doubt there is a drug that would make (conscious) people comfortable with rape.

No. It's treatment only if there's a real, objectively verifiable medical condition - a thing that exists beyond human opinion. Otherwise it's drugging. People often get drugged with alcohol or drugs like marijuana, heroine, cocaine and so on, in order to get rid of distress and other problems.

 

[Magical Realist]

We're simply in speechless awe of your infallible authority on a disease that you claim doesn't even exist. Perhaps you could share with us your experiences with mentally ill people and how you learned they were faking it convincingly enough to fool college educated doctors and scientists. Oh you know. The voices in their heads they complain about. The hallucinations they see of Satan on their TV set. Their staying up all night for days talking a thousand mph for no reason whatsoever. Please do shed some light on your experience in this area. We are all waiting with bated breath....

 

[spidergoat]

Good. Let's see the scientific evidence!

If you want to be serious, don't choose the most recent controversial definitions, even experts don't agree about them. Schizophrenia? Bi-polar? Depression? Take your pick.

This is not scientific evidence.

It's an observation that requires a hypothesis.

No. It's treatment only if there's a real, objectively verifiable medical condition - a thing that exists beyond human opinion. Otherwise it's drugging. People often get drugged with alcohol or drugs like marijuana, heroine, cocaine and so on, in order to get rid of distress and other problems.

What's wrong with drugging? I know there is no cure for mental illness, but drugs help people. We can't read minds, but physical tests are being currently developed. And here.

 

[billvon]

The only thing that matters is the scientific evidence about what we consider harmful now.

Which changes from person to person, and situation to situation.

If you are a carrier for sickle cell anemia, do you have a medical problem? In most places, yes. In places that have malaria - you have a problem if you are NOT a carrier.

If you are obese, do you have a medical condition? Is it harmful? Depends on how obese you are and where you are. If most of the people in your area are starving, and you have enough fat to last through a famine, you might be far better off than that skinny guy medically.

If you are skinny, do you have a medical condition? Here in the US, probably not; you'll get kudos for keeping the weight off. In Sandire, Niger - you probably do.

WHAT? you say. How can whether you have a disease be subjective? It depends on the situation and the person.

What do you know about the process of categorizing a certain behavior/emotion/etc as being a mental illness? How does it happen?

There are two basic methods, implemented via the WHO and the APA. Both organizations research many mental disorders and classify them into specific disorders. This taxonomy is useful for medical practitioners; they can then discuss treatments based on histories of other people with that disease.

However, such taxonomic references are often abused by non medical types. The classic example is someone going through the DSM-V and telling their spouse "you have narcissistic personality disorder! See, it says so right here." This is as much a mistake as someone who says "See, you have e. coli infesting your gut! You have a massive deadly infection!"

Needless to say, even doctors sometimes get it wrong (true of both psychiatrists and general practitioners.) However, with the advent of evidence-based medicine, treatment of both physical and mental disorders has improved tremendously. Even ignoring initial diagnoses we can now say with good authority "patient X exhibited these symptoms. These treatments were tried; treatment A was successful 21% of the time, treatment B was successful 88% of the time and treatment C was successful 55% of the time."

 

[Magical Realist]

The Underlying Neurobiology of Bipolar Disorder:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525098/

 

[Syne]

These [gods, ghosts, voodoo] are not fantasy just because they cannot at present be precisely quantified. They do exist in spite of this.

Sound familiar?

 

[Syne]

Where are your examples of this? People are very likely to react badly to bad behavior, but people rarely walk around with a placard of their disorder hanging around their neck, so you cannot call this a reaction to the disorder, only the behavior. Just like unruly children, if people cannot behave then perhaps they should not go out, else they are likely to have their behavior constrained by others.

As usual you speak out of total ignorance on this subject. IOW a totally LACK of anecdotal experiences. People in their manic state are usually discouraged from going out and interacting socially with strangers as it is well understood they will not fare well. Nobody expects them to get a free pass to act a fool in public. That's why bipolars in their manic state, particular type1's, are usually hospitalized until they can get back to normal. The world is full of moralizing idiots ready to blame the behavior of the mentally ill on their own lack of character. You appear to be one of them.

I have already demonstrated my anecdotal experiences, and the OP completely affirmed that they are accurate. You just agreed that bad behavior is not expected to be tolerated, which is precisely what I said. And I never said anything about the person's character, so this is a straw man, seemingly meant to justify your ad hominem.

Perhaps you should get back on your meds.

 

[Magical Realist]

I have already demonstrated my anecdotal experiences, and the OP completely affirmed that they are accurate. You just agreed that bad behavior is not expected to be tolerated, which is precisely what I said. And I never said anything about the person's character, so this is a straw man, seemingly meant to justify your ad hominem.

Perhaps you should get back on your meds.

You don't appear to have a clue what you're talking about. Like I said, just another moralizing idiot...

 

[wynn]

Your cited expert, Allen Francis, acknowledges that the process is not precise. It's as possible to overdiagnose as underdiagnose. These mental conditions are not fantasy just because they cannot at present be precisely quantified. They do exist in spite of this.

Of course they're fantasy. They're fantasy because no one can prove their existence. As I said, they're proposed out of the blue and voted into existence by a bunch of crooks.

Mental illnesses do exist - notably at least as socio-psychological constructs, and very influential ones at that.

Just like witch craft exists/existed as a socio-psychological construct, and a very relevant at that (given the consequences that befell people who were accused of it).

The strictly physical aspects of mental illnesses may be questionable and disputable. But the socio-psychological aspect of them is not.

 

[wynn]

No. It's treatment only if there's a real, objectively verifiable medical condition - a thing that exists beyond human opinion. Otherwise it's drugging. People often get drugged with alcohol or drugs like marijuana, heroine, cocaine and so on, in order to get rid of distress and other problems.

As long as it is not clear what the goal of the therapeutic approach is, and whether that goal is in fact wholesome (and as wholesome as possible at that), it's not possible to distinguish between "treatment" and "drugging."

To note that "drugging" isn't limited to ingesting/injecting substances, but extends also to adopting particular systems of beliefs and values. "The Secret" can be considered such an example of mental intoxication.

 

[wynn]

It is treatment for them if the condition causes them distress and dysfunction.

If you are working 12-hour shifts seven days a week at a job you hate, and end up depressed, is that really "dysfunction" on your part? Do you really have a "condition"?

Just as it is natural to get blisters from wearing too tight shoes, it's only to be expected that people will end up with mental difficulties when they try to function in environments that are too constricting for them.

But in a true one-size-fits-all manner some people believe (among them some psychiatrists and psychologists) that everyone should wear shoes of the same size, regardless of the size of their feet.

Your cited expert, Allen Francis, acknowledges that the process is not precise. It's as possible to overdiagnose as underdiagnose. These mental conditions are not fantasy just because they cannot at present be precisely quantified. They do exist in spite of this. Treatment doesn't depend on understanding the condition to a degree that might only be possible in physics and math. The criteria is only if the treatment works for that particular patient.

Which changes from person to person, and situation to situation.

This is so naive, so idealistic!

 

[ccdan]

We're simply in speechless awe of your infallible authority on a disease that you claim doesn't even exist. Perhaps you could share with us your experiences with mentally ill people and how you learned they were faking it convincingly enough to fool college educated doctors and scientists. Oh you know. The voices in their heads they complain about. The hallucinations they see of Satan on their TV set. Their staying up all night for days talking a thousand mph for no reason whatsoever. Please do shed some light on your experience in this area. We are all waiting with bated breath....

1. hallucinations and other weird things can appear for large variety of reasons, from drug abuse to brain tumors and many other medical conditions that produce hallucinations as side effects - none of which are treatable by psychiatry (which doesn't really treat anything)

2. sometimes unexplained thing happen, but we're not entitled make up explanations that "explain" the unexplained - that's the realm of pseudoscience and religion

If you want to be serious, don't choose the most recent controversial definitions, even experts don't agree about them. Schizophrenia? Bi-polar? Depression? Take your pick.

Conduct disorder is not new. I don't think there's a single "mental illness" that isn't controversial in a way or another.

Schizophrenia? Bi-polar? Depression? Take your pick.

Any. Or all of them.
What is schizophrenia for example? Can you come with a precise definition that leaves no room for interpretation? What's the verifiable scientific basis (biological evidence) behind that definition? How can we "detect" it in a rigorous, purely scientific manner?

It's an observation that requires a hypothesis.

It's your personal opinion.
Even if it were an objective observation, that still doesn't make it scientific evidence that proves the existence of a mental illness.
There are many people who exhibit weird behaviors and claim weird things, from people that claim to have religious experiences to people who claim that are able to view remotely. But they're not considered mentally ill. Because being labeled mentally ill doesn't really depend on how rational and realistic an individual is but rather on how much he or she deviates from (hypothetical) societal norms.


Which proves once again that psychiatry has nothing to do with medicine.

What's wrong with drugging? I know there is no cure for mental illness, but drugs help people. We can't read minds, but physical tests are being currently developed. And here.

One article is 8 years old and one is 5 years old. Nothing happened in the meantime. Why? Because there was no science in the first place for the previous work.

The Underlying Neurobiology of Bipolar Disorder:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525098/

Typical technical mambo-jambo that confuses people unfamiliar with science. That article is a messy collection of nonsensical and random information (meta-analysis kind of stuff) from other 114 documents/articles, mainly from about 20 years ago.

To put it shortly:

Pathophysiology
The pathophysiology of bipolar disorder has not been determined, and no objective biologic markers have yet been found to correspond definitively with the disease state.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/286342-overview#a0104

 

[spidergoat]

Sound familiar?

No, not really. There are a statistically significant number of people who experience the same symptoms, regardless of belief or culture.

 

[spidergoat]

Mental illnesses do exist - notably at least as socio-psychological constructs, and very influential ones at that.

Just like witch craft exists/existed as a socio-psychological construct, and a very relevant at that (given the consequences that befell people who were accused of it).

The strictly physical aspects of mental illnesses may be questionable and disputable. But the socio-psychological aspect of them is not.

Perhaps there is a degree of that. We don't have a traditional role for schizophrenic people in modern society as there was in the past with witchdoctors, shamans, and saints. They used to believe crazy people were really contacting the spirit realm. But we know that's nonsense now and it's a result of a brain condition.

 

[spidergoat]

Any. Or all of them.
What is schizophrenia for example? Can you come with a precise definition that leaves no room for interpretation? What's the verifiable scientific basis (biological evidence) behind that definition? How can we "detect" it in a rigorous, purely scientific manner?

There can't be a precise definition at present because it isn't one thing. It manifests in different people in different ways, like the spectrum of autism. There are similarities that can be characterized. I think you are making a common mistake which states that since science doesn't know everything, it knows nothing. The main thing is it causes people to be disconnected from reality in such a way that their lives fall apart. The fact that this behavior is not under their control means that it is something other than a mere personality difference. So far, science recognizes the commonality of symptoms and treatments for that set of symptoms and gives the condition a name. The proof that this grouping represents something real is in the results. A set of similar drugs seem to address similar symptoms.

Even if it were an objective observation, that still doesn't make it scientific evidence that proves the existence of a mental illness. There are many people who exhibit weird behaviors and claim weird things, from people that claim to have religious experiences to people who claim that are able to view remotely. But they're not considered mentally ill. Because being labeled mentally ill doesn't really depend on how rational and realistic an individual is but rather on how much he or she deviates from (hypothetical) societal norms.

Yes it does, mental illness is just a label for similar observations. And part of that label includes a part which states that the condition causes the person significant disruption in their lives, they are unable to navigate the world in a rational way. You may choose to believe that there can be a society that isn't based on knowing what is real, but that doesn't correspond to any society yet devised by man. By the way, I do consider most religious people to have a form of mental illness.