News Psychologists Refute Psychiatry Bio-model In Uk!!!

[Abstract]

Thank you Springer. I totally agree with it.

 

[Springer80]

You've got your flares on, ain't cha. :D

 

[anthony]

Dead Link Removed

Printed for reading....

 

[anthony]

Yep... still nothing has changed from my prior statement after reading this. There are valid points, there are idiotic points, there are points in the middle that need to be weighed appropriately.

Statements made about mental health being stigmatising... well... removing disorder or anything else isn't going to change stigmatisation. Sorry... they're just taking political correctness to levels that society will not accept. People with AIDS see it all the time, cancer, so forth, which are biological. Tell a person who's about to shake hands with an AIDS sufferer and watch their reaction, whether they pull back, hesitate or continue as nothing happened. Stigmatisation occurs and will not be stopped by changing a name.

I do agree with what I assume is a precursor to mental health diagnosis, being a general diagnosis of a psychological illness. There is simply too much unknown about most mental health to be lumping people into a diagnostic category after a session or two, when a majority recover in due time with no intervention as proven by many a study. When people struggle with mental health, to be perfectly honest, I do concur that from the time they reach out to the time a diagnosis is given, there should be a 6 - 12 month period where a generic mental health diagnosis is given, allowing therapy, treatment and time to see what happens. If there is no success, or little, then step into actual diagnosis.

Saying that... parts about mental health diagnosis crossing into biological health as being a bad thing, is simply just not so. To say mental health has little or no similarity with biology is plain wrong. That logic is back in Freudian days of his theory which simply cannot be proven, or disproven. Mental health is today what it is because psychiatrists (the actual doctors of mental health) have had enough with the scepticism, along with society, and started applying science to understand the biological factors associated to what is simply isolated as a mental health problem because its due to our behaviour and thoughts.

To say biological medicine doesn't work from diagnostic manuals is ludicrous, and completely incorrect. Medicine absolutely works from diagnostic guides to help psychician's identify an illness based on biological symptoms. Some mental cannot occur without first a biological act in our body, and that is fact. Every thought has a neurological synapse firing in our brain to another part of our brain. When thoughts go wrong, science can show mis-firing or direction to the wrong area of the brain, which shows a specific behaviour.

Is science new to mental health? Yes. Five years ago PTSD was a chemical imbalance. Today, it isn't, because they have the means to now watch individual synapses and parts of our brain fire, measuring and recording what happens. When you measure and record a group of people and get the same result, then someone suspected of something else shows a different result, science is doing a probability score, which is better than the old system of simply guessing... let alone that is what psychologists are still doing with mental health... guessing based on statistical data from bodies of people show similarities.

You cannot discard medication, though it shouldn't be a first-line defence either in mental health treatment for the reasons raised, being there is simply so much unknown about disorders at this stage. Science has been behind biological health for centuries, yet has only really been introduced to mental health in the couple of decades. Not even a fair comparison... let alone how much biological medicine has changed over the centuries as science in the field has progressed. I expect mental health to equally change over the coming centuries as more is known from a scientific view of what biologically happens. Genome research is doing backflips in this area already, isolating genes that both help us, or hinder us, in life. Still a lot they don't know in that one either... but it's got a promising future.

Summary... some valid points, some idiotic points trying to raise their agenda, and then some in-between points which aren't showing all side of the puzzle, but equate to some interesting outcomes for trialling.