Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(typo) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi Rob. I'm not going to raise any objections to the homosexuality section, as that's been discussed extensively elsewhere. But I can't quite manage to resist commenting on the depression section. You seem to be saying that antidepressants are basically a scam. I will grant you that they're not perfect and don't work for everyone, but they certainly work for some people. How can that be if there's no biological basis? Also, to say that depressed people aren't treated with psychotherapy anymore is simply wrong. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT) | Hi Rob. I'm not going to raise any objections to the homosexuality section, as that's been discussed extensively elsewhere. But I can't quite manage to resist commenting on the depression section. You seem to be saying that antidepressants are basically a scam. I will grant you that they're not perfect and don't work for everyone, but they certainly work for some people. How can that be if there's no biological basis? Also, to say that depressed people aren't treated with psychotherapy anymore is simply wrong. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
:Alcohol works as a mood elevator, too. What the Depression section does, is introduce the basic difference between a "disorder" and a "disease", common to all fields of medicine. In the medical specialty of psychiatry, "mental diseases" are delineated from "mental disorders", and both can be characterized as "mental illness". This is something laypeople fundamentally are unaware of. The case study of Depression is interesting, whereas Homosexuality was regarded as a "mental illness", and classified as a "mental disorder" and later downgraded, Depression was ''upgraded'' from a "disorder" to a "disease" '''based upon speculative science'''. From all three topics examined, we see research is ongoing, and "patients" are routinely used as experimental subjects. My next comment perhaps belongs on the [[Talk: Homosexuality]] page: Does anyone see the problem with the APA position statement that, OTOH condemns RT advocates for ethical issues, WOTOH encourages further experimental research? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT) | :Alcohol works as a mood elevator, too. What the Depression section does, is introduce the basic difference between a "disorder" and a "disease", common to all fields of medicine. In the medical specialty of psychiatry, "mental diseases" are delineated from "mental disorders", and both can be characterized as "mental illness". This is something laypeople fundamentally are unaware of. The case study of Depression is interesting, whereas Homosexuality was regarded as a "mental illness", and classified as a "mental disorder" and later downgraded, Depression was ''upgraded'' from a "disorder" to a "disease" '''based upon speculative science'''. From all three topics examined, we see research is ongoing, and "patients" are routinely used as experimental subjects. My next comment perhaps belongs on the [[Talk: Homosexuality]] page: Does anyone see the problem with the APA position statement that, OTOH condemns RT advocates for ethical issues, WOTOH encourages further experimental research? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::You didn't really answer the question. The discussion of disorder vs. disease is somewhat misleading. No such distinction is made in the DSM. The primary diagnosis relevant to depression is Major Depressive Disorder, and others are Bipolar Disorder (I and II), Dysthymic Disorder, etc. Of course patients are used as experimental subjects - how else will we learn more? But they're never used unwittingly or without providing informed consent to participate in any study. Your final statement is wrong in that the APA is not encouraging research on RT, that is a misinterpretation of the position statement. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:23, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:23, May 31, 2007
Hi Rob. I'm not going to raise any objections to the homosexuality section, as that's been discussed extensively elsewhere. But I can't quite manage to resist commenting on the depression section. You seem to be saying that antidepressants are basically a scam. I will grant you that they're not perfect and don't work for everyone, but they certainly work for some people. How can that be if there's no biological basis? Also, to say that depressed people aren't treated with psychotherapy anymore is simply wrong. Murray 15:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Alcohol works as a mood elevator, too. What the Depression section does, is introduce the basic difference between a "disorder" and a "disease", common to all fields of medicine. In the medical specialty of psychiatry, "mental diseases" are delineated from "mental disorders", and both can be characterized as "mental illness". This is something laypeople fundamentally are unaware of. The case study of Depression is interesting, whereas Homosexuality was regarded as a "mental illness", and classified as a "mental disorder" and later downgraded, Depression was upgraded from a "disorder" to a "disease" based upon speculative science. From all three topics examined, we see research is ongoing, and "patients" are routinely used as experimental subjects. My next comment perhaps belongs on the Talk: Homosexuality page: Does anyone see the problem with the APA position statement that, OTOH condemns RT advocates for ethical issues, WOTOH encourages further experimental research? RobS 15:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- You didn't really answer the question. The discussion of disorder vs. disease is somewhat misleading. No such distinction is made in the DSM. The primary diagnosis relevant to depression is Major Depressive Disorder, and others are Bipolar Disorder (I and II), Dysthymic Disorder, etc. Of course patients are used as experimental subjects - how else will we learn more? But they're never used unwittingly or without providing informed consent to participate in any study. Your final statement is wrong in that the APA is not encouraging research on RT, that is a misinterpretation of the position statement. Murray 17:23, 31 May 2007 (EDT)