alocispepraluger102 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) everyone but me, of course. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/dsm-5-mental-illness-bible-list-internet-addiction-illnesses-article-1.1020979 Edited February 13, 2012 by alocispepraluger102 Quote
Dave James Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 If they're hurting for proof, they can drop by my place just about any day of the week. Quote
alocispepraluger102 Posted February 13, 2012 Author Report Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) If they're hurting for proof, they can drop by my place just about any day of the week. considering the jazz/music, film, alcohol, and internet addictions of most "O" members, how do they(we) manage to squeeze them all in? seriously, one notable cmment from the article: in the UK, it has long been understood that USA's Food & Drugs Administration was nothing more than a creation of the drug companies which hijacked medicine for its own commercial ends. Whilst we fully accept DSM-IV as the "bible" of mental health, we have long since disregarded the USA's guidelines on physical health & medicine, regarding them as retrograde. Your doctors are effectively banned from carrying out effective treatments widely available in Europe & the rest of the world as FDA limits them to prescribing drugs or carrying out surgery. It comes as no surprise therefore that DSM-V lists numerous social conditions as if they were mental illnesses. Mental illness in general is highly subjective and is as likely to respond to a placebo as to any drug. Given also that our understanding of the brain & mental illness is about as advanced as our understanding of the body was over 100 years ago, it makes social unease into fertile ground for peddling the equivalents of "granny's patent cure-all medicine" in country fairs, but under the guise of research & respectable legally regulated practise. There are some recent advances in understanding of mental matters that should be incorporated e.g. a definition of the difference between mental illness and mental injury. In DSM-IV the only mental injury listed is PTSD and it is not even mentioned that unlike the other mental conditions PTSD is exclusively an injury and never an illness. Given the "sue for everything" culture of the United States, it's surprising the legal sharks didn't grab this one. On the other hand, it is quite horrific that where it has been shown that a murderer is affected by a combination of genetics and nurture he has been spared the death penalty because apparently he had no choice and is quite likely to murder again, where a person showing genuine empathy & repentance is likely to be executed. This is an exacct reversal of Biblical justice! I'm sorry folks, the leading position on the understanding of mental conditions that the USA used to have in the world is likely to be undermined by the publication of DSM-V. Edited February 13, 2012 by alocispepraluger102 Quote
JETman Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 No self-respecting shrink pays any attention to that thing. A relatively recent version listed homosexuality as a mental illness. Quote
JETman Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 I can stop any time I want. The good news is that you don't have to! Quote
sonnymax Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 No self-respecting shrink pays any attention to that thing. A relatively recent version listed homosexuality as a mental illness. That's not entirely true. The DSM provides a "common language" among health care providers, insurance companies, patient and families that can be used to foster communication, clarification, and proper treatment. The criticisms cited here are rife with inaccuracies and obviously aimed at the anti-pharmacology crowd. Mind you, an experienced clinician may not have need to repeatedly consult the DSM in treating symptoms, but it is a useful tool in the overall delivery of services. Btw, while the pathologizing of homosexuality was undeniably a "black-eye" on the profession, that mistake was corrected 40 years ago. Quote
JETman Posted February 13, 2012 Report Posted February 13, 2012 I don't believe that it was corrected 40 years ago, as anti-gay crap has run pretty rampant in our great nation right up to and including some of the new millenium. "Common language"? In this country, we already have that and it's called English. Any "health care provider" who needs a book to facilitate communication with me or anyone else is definitely not one worth consulting. IMHO, of course. Quote
fasstrack Posted February 14, 2012 Report Posted February 14, 2012 everyone but me, of course. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/dsm-5-mental-illness-bible-list-internet-addiction-illnesses-article-1.1020979 Ha! Jesus. I say we all volunteer as paid subjects while there's still time...... Quote
sonnymax Posted February 14, 2012 Report Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) I don't believe that it was corrected 40 years ago, as anti-gay crap has run pretty rampant in our great nation right up to and including some of the new millenium. "Common language"? In this country, we already have that and it's called English. Any "health care provider" who needs a book to facilitate communication with me or anyone else is definitely not one worth consulting. IMHO, of course. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't change the facts. The DSM removed homosexuality from it's list of disorders in 1973. Every profession employs special terminology to help communicate the complex and intricate nature of their work. Psychology is no different from the law, medicine, or other fields. That being said, practitioners don't typically use such terminology when explaining and discussing matters with clients. Again, it's communications between clinicians, insurance companies, lawyers and the courts, etc. that benefit from sharing a common language that's designed to promote a basic understanding of the situation at hand, which hopefully leads to better care and a more positive outcome. Edited February 15, 2012 by sonnymax Quote
alankin Posted February 14, 2012 Report Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) A little known fact is that DSM-IV considered including, but ultimately rejected, a diagnosis of Blue Note addiction. Edited February 14, 2012 by alankin Quote
Jazzmoose Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 I don't believe that it was corrected 40 years ago, as anti-gay crap has run pretty rampant in our great nation right up to and including some of the new millenium. Fortunately, facts do not require your belief. "Common language"? In this country, we already have that and it's called English. Any "health care provider" who needs a book to facilitate communication with me or anyone else is definitely not one worth consulting. IMHO, of course. Anyone who doesn't realize that different areas of expertise have their own expanded vocabulary is about 500 years behind the times. This explains your first point, I guess... Quote
JETman Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 For some of us, an expanded vocabulary does not prevent those outside the "club" from understanding it. Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.