
theboy
Illuminated
- Jul 15, 2022
- 3,233
This is a topic to debate and not as an absolute truth
We all agree that many people suffer from heartbreak, suicidal despair, hearing hostile voices, crippling anxiety, and mood swings. If we are guided by these concepts, there are clearly mental illnesses. The concepts exist just like ghosts, God, witches and goblins but they are accepted as abstract concepts that do not represent a mental illness to those who see or hear these beings. With this example, we can unravel that declaring the disease is not that simple.
Any science, in this case medicine, needs to be able to show that it is based on a reliable and valid classification system, in order to develop testable hypotheses and, therefore, the general laws that constitute a body of scientific knowledge. ' "Reliable" describes the probability that when faced with the same patient and an agreed list of criteria, clinicians will come up with the same diagnosis. Relative to psychiatric diagnosis, reliability is extremely low, which is one of the reasons people often collect a comprehensive list of labels on their journey through the mental health system. But an even more important question is the validity of such categories when related to "reality". The person who is diagnosed with pneumonia, cancer or a simple cold, is credible because the disease manifests itself on a physical level. So what happens when someone is diagnosed with a mental illness if they can't see?
The so-called 'symptoms' are not examples of bodily dysfunction, but a bunch of social judgments about people's thoughts, feelings and behavior. Diagnoses make people with problems become patients with diseases. When the diagnosis is written in the medical file, it is the first step to use psychiatric drugs, stigma and social exclusion.
How to proceed, then, if we want to accept the reality of people's suffering and yet question the validity of the medical explanations offered? In addition, we can ask ourselves which psychiatrist is right in establishing the basis for defining a mental illness? Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, William James, John Watson?
Perhaps a person who simply does not like life for social, political, legal reasons, or any matter, decides to end his life, was he sick?
We have more questions than answers.
We all agree that many people suffer from heartbreak, suicidal despair, hearing hostile voices, crippling anxiety, and mood swings. If we are guided by these concepts, there are clearly mental illnesses. The concepts exist just like ghosts, God, witches and goblins but they are accepted as abstract concepts that do not represent a mental illness to those who see or hear these beings. With this example, we can unravel that declaring the disease is not that simple.
Any science, in this case medicine, needs to be able to show that it is based on a reliable and valid classification system, in order to develop testable hypotheses and, therefore, the general laws that constitute a body of scientific knowledge. ' "Reliable" describes the probability that when faced with the same patient and an agreed list of criteria, clinicians will come up with the same diagnosis. Relative to psychiatric diagnosis, reliability is extremely low, which is one of the reasons people often collect a comprehensive list of labels on their journey through the mental health system. But an even more important question is the validity of such categories when related to "reality". The person who is diagnosed with pneumonia, cancer or a simple cold, is credible because the disease manifests itself on a physical level. So what happens when someone is diagnosed with a mental illness if they can't see?
The so-called 'symptoms' are not examples of bodily dysfunction, but a bunch of social judgments about people's thoughts, feelings and behavior. Diagnoses make people with problems become patients with diseases. When the diagnosis is written in the medical file, it is the first step to use psychiatric drugs, stigma and social exclusion.
How to proceed, then, if we want to accept the reality of people's suffering and yet question the validity of the medical explanations offered? In addition, we can ask ourselves which psychiatrist is right in establishing the basis for defining a mental illness? Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, William James, John Watson?
Perhaps a person who simply does not like life for social, political, legal reasons, or any matter, decides to end his life, was he sick?
We have more questions than answers.