The Medical Thread

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Who said I was arguing? lol at the popping pills to feel better.

I'm not saying anything to negate the DSM. Infact each successive edition of the DSM has proclaimed an increasing number of diagnoses that cover a large number of human behaviors. The 1st DSM published covered over 150 diagnoses, the next over 350 and so on. I think the next one is supposedly scheduled for 2011, and the number will only increase.

AKA_Monet, I'm not arguing with you, infact I agree with most of what you posted, but I'm just saying in contrast to the DSM manuals, large percentages of people with a severe and persistent mental illness get no care whatsoever. The majority of those with a diagnosable mental disorder are not receiving treatment.

Also, studies have shown that about 42-50% of people with a serious mental illness were receiving no treatment for their conditions. I also read that a seperate study published in 2002 found that of those in the U.S. receiving treatment for a serious mental illness, only 40% were receiving what is considered minimally adequate treatment. Out of all those with serious mental disorders, then, only 15% were getting the high quality care they needed. This goes back to my earlier post about profits vs. actual health care. I'm not negating anything you've said, but I still believe the profits are overshadowing the care that is really needed for serious mentally ill patients.

lol at your husband. May I ask what happened to him for taking short cuts?

When I say "argue", I mean this...

I probably should say "discuss" as the appropriate terminology... What we are trying to do is persuade each other of our concepts to learn what is really going on here. We are not yet in debate...

@bolded: With these comments, I agree with you, most people fail to get adequate mental health care, if at all.

The profits from Big Pharma probably overshadowing appropriate care of these patients. What I am saying is that there has been a shift in mental health care from talk therapy to that of the concrete, biological, evidence based neurochemical provable... The two should be working together because in mental illnesses 1) quite a few people are born with imbalances; and 2) learning, environment and nurturing as well as personality development play a huge role into someone's behavior.

The drug treatment and efficacy should be used on someone who cannot sift through a difficulty, BUT more importantly, that person should undergo somekind of talk treatment to validate and confirm societal standards on civil behavior...

Long time ago, a child acting out in a public setting was unheard of and a parent could physically discipline their child, publicly, if they wanted to.

Today, a child can act out in a public setting, no one will say anything, and clients are disturbed. It has caused some places of business not to allow children into the establishments. The parent usually takes the child to the restroom and resolves the issue, what some would say placating...

No one questions how it might damage the psyche on one identifying boundaries on this growing child. If a child has a predisposition to ADHD, will adderall, ritalin or whatever treatment really enable child to be functional in behavior?

But without treatment, that child would be lost to the system of violent outbursts and uneducated due to behavioral problems.

What to do...

Then we haven't gotten to appropriate diagnosis...

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

When I say "argue", I mean this...

I probably should say "discuss" as the appropriate terminology... What we are trying to do is persuade each other of our concepts to learn what is really going on here. We are not yet in debate...

@bolded: With these comments, I agree with you, most people fail to get adequate mental health care, if at all.

The profits from Big Pharma probably overshadowing appropriate care of these patients. What I am saying is that there has been a shift in mental health care from talk therapy to that of the concrete, biological, evidence based neurochemical provable... The two should be working together because in mental illnesses 1) quite a few people are born with imbalances; and 2) learning, environment and nurturing as well as personality development play a huge role into someone's behavior.

The drug treatment and efficacy should be used on someone who cannot sift through a difficulty, BUT more importantly, that person should undergo somekind of talk treatment to validate and confirm societal standards on civil behavior...

Long time ago, a child acting out in a public setting was unheard of and a parent could physically discipline their child, publicly, if they wanted to.

Today, a child can act out in a public setting, no one will say anything, and clients are disturbed. It has caused some places of business not to allow children into the establishments. The parent usually takes the child to the restroom and resolves the issue, what some would say placating...

No one questions how it might damage the psyche on one identifying boundaries on this growing child. If a child has a predisposition to ADHD, will adderall, ritalin or whatever treatment really enable child to be functional in behavior?

But without treatment, that child would be lost to the system of violent outbursts and uneducated due to behavioral problems.

What to do...

Then we haven't gotten to appropriate diagnosis...

o.k. you just made me feel like a total idiot. So this is a discussion not an argument. lol o.k.

AKA_Monet, I'm not trying to persuade you to change your opinion. You've made some very valid points. I just want you see my side just a little.

What grabbed my attention from your last post, was the fact that you were talking about how things were with children years ago, and how things are different now. Yes, it is. My point precisely! Going back to the DSM manuals, the prevailing term to describe specific psychiatric conditions in the 1st DSM manual was kind of odd. The term reaction is what was used back then. Like Schizophrenia for example was described as a schizophrenic "reaction". Depression was considered a depressive "reaction". The concept of "reaction" derived from psychoanalytic thinking, and as such, mental torment was thought to come about as a result of a reaction to "environmental", pschological and biological problems, as you stated above. By the time the 2nd DSM manual was published, the term "reaction" had been tossed aside. It described depression in more psychological terms such as depressive neurosis and depressive psychosis. Now, by the time the 3rd DSM manual was published, it was an attempt to strike somewhat of a middle ground between the psychoanalytic parts, which had no interesest in biology, nor the scientists who were starting to gain more knowledge as psychiatric drugs were becoming more prevalant and often successfully treating people with severe mental illness.

From the 1st DSM manual to the 3rd one, there a was a significant change. That being somewhere around the 50s to the 60s. Things have changed again and it will continue. I'm just trying to reiterate what you stated about how things were with children years ago and how things are now. I'm just using a different approach. Now, you tell me. Why is that "years" ago you NEVER, EVER, EVER, saw prescription drugs being advertised on televison? Now it's like every day. I can't watch t.v. without some random commercial about some prescription drug being shown to the public for all to see. Oh, and lets not talk about all the side effects. The advertising is about what I've been trying to get you to see, if I haven't already, that it's more about the profits than it is about the actual health care of the patient, and this is what it has CHANGED into. Period.