Mental Disorders and Religious Sentiment...

[blutoski]

Now you're asking the right questions. They're important questions. They're questions we should have been asking back when we were sterilizing people. They're the same questions we should be asking now that we're mentally sterilizing people's moods.

No, that's the question I've been asking all along. This is the third time. You still haven't answered it.

 

[blutoski]

Are all viruses communicable?

I'd say there is no doubt that some "mental illness" has a physical cause, yet if a specific virus, or chemical, or whatever, is not identified and has actually been proved as causal, the symptoms are mental and subjective more than physical and objective.


And I see bluto still doesn't get it...

Oh, please...

 

[stamenflicker]

No, that's the question I've been asking all along. This is the third time. You still haven't answered it.

Seems to me like you just started asking questions, that prior to now you've been chocked full of answers and examples as to why your mythology is better than anyone else's.

Maybe there just isn't a good answer. If there is one, perhaps we'll see it 100 years down the road, when doping up the population is rightly viewed as a form of slavery. But hey, at least we did it in ignorance, and with our warmest sympathies for the mentally ill. Hindsight is 20/20.

Or maybe, we'll just all be too doped up to care.

 

[blutoski]

Seems to me like you just started asking questions, that prior to now you've been chocked full of answers and examples as to why your mythology is better than anyone else's.

Maybe there just isn't a good answer.

Well, you were pretty sure a few posts ago. I'm asking these questions because throughout this thread I observe you've frequently contradicted yourself and been inconsistent. My impression was that you haven't explored these thoughts.

Earlier, you said that chickenpox was an illness. OK: I ask you again: why is chickenpox an illness, but having brown eyes is not? Or are you unsure about the criteria?

 

[hammegk]

Sorry, I should have said bluto doesn't want to get it.

Or he actually does need to have the difference between brown eyes and disease explained to him.

Which is the truth, I wonder?

 

[Meffy]

Or he actually does need to have the difference between brown eyes and disease explained to him.

Misrepresentation. I hope a knowing one but only you can tell us that.

It seems to me that Blutoski is asking for is an explanation of stamenflicker's take on this. Not a primer on communicable diseases and genetics. But as I said I think you knew that already. At least I certainly hope you were able to work that out on your own, and were just being preciously disingenuous as usual.

 

[hammegk]

Someone is certainly being 'preciously disingenuous'. When does "skeptical inquiry" cross the line into idiocy?

And when will Meffy actually add something in a thread other than a (useless) aroma?

 

[stamenflicker]

OK: I ask you again: why is chickenpox an illness, but having brown eyes is not? Or are you unsure about the criteria?

And I will answer you, yet again. Chickenpox is an illness because illness is defined as "the condition of being sick." People with brown eyes are not in the condition of being sick. People with freckles are not in the condition of being sick. However people with brown eyes and freckles may be in the condition of being sick if they have chicken pox. I'm not sure why this is not coming across.

Your real question is who decides. I answered that too. We do. Usually with input from medical professionals. These professionals are often referred to as doctors. Doctors could rally around the notion that people with freckles really are sick. We could go along with them. We could force them to enter freckle removal surgery, or commit them to a freckle hospital. We could let them get away with murder because of their freckles. We can do anything we want with backing from the right professionals.

Will you continue down this path?

Or will you admit that a person's self-reported feelings are much different than an objectively gathered body temperature? Will you admit that a survey and an X-ray are really two different things altogether? Will you admit that the observation of one's behavior is much different than observing blockage in their large intestine? Will you admit that no doctor in this country as the right to force me to take Tylenol for my headaches? Or that my family has no right to manage my estate because of my broken rib?

You can say I'm confusing the issue all you want, but these realities bear out with common logic. You can say I've not thought this through as much as U want, but the reality is that I don't have to believe in anything lacking evidence. I don't care how many definitions we create in an attempt to absolve Yates of responsibility or to justify altering the moods of our hyper-active children who are just bored to death in classroom to begin with.

 

[Dancing David]

Since you have ignored my posts, I will ask you instead, what prove do you have of society forcing treatment on adults? Children can be forced by thier parents, but where are adults being forced into treatment. You can be detained in a psych hospital while you present a risk to self or other, but in Illinois you can't force treatment.

Have you found that statistic that 30 % of male chilluns are being medicated?

 

[blutoski]

And I will answer you, yet again. Chickenpox is an illness because illness is defined as "the condition of being sick." People with brown eyes are not in the condition of being sick. People with freckles are not in the condition of being sick. However people with brown eyes and freckles may be in the condition of being sick if they have chicken pox. I'm not sure why this is not coming across.

I'm saying this is a circular argument: who says that chickenpox is 'a condition of being sick'. Why is chickenpox not, say, 'a state of being,' just like brown-eyedness?

 

[blutoski]

Since you have ignored my posts, I will ask you instead, what prove do you have of society forcing treatment on adults? Children can be forced by thier parents, but where are adults being forced into treatment. You can be detained in a psych hospital while you present a risk to self or other, but in Illinois you can't force treatment.

Have you found that statistic that 30 % of male chilluns are being medicated?

I think that given enough jurisdictions, there's a good chance that at least one state, province, county, or whatever, may have this kind of latitude. Stamenflicker did provide a link to the APA's position statement on educational requirements for children with certain conditions to be medicated in order to be permitted to attend normal classes. This isn't the same as 'forcing' the kids to take medication (20 years ago, they would have been expelled without a medication 'option'), but it's getting there.

Also: people *are* medicated without consent from time to time. Sedatives comes to mind. If the guy's punching the emerg doc, he's going under. There's no screwing around. But these judgement calls would be made whether or not the situation had a psychiatric dimension.

Like I said: we could just go back to the old days, and stack them up like cordwood in prison, or leave them sitting in their own feces in alleys. At least they'd have their "dignity".

 

[Dancing David]

I think that given enough jurisdictions, there's a good chance that at least one state, province, county, or whatever, may have this kind of latitude. Stamenflicker did provide a link to the APA's position statement on educational requirements for children with certain conditions to be medicated in order to be permitted to attend normal classes. This isn't the same as 'forcing' the kids to take medication (20 years ago, they would have been expelled without a medication 'option'), but it's getting there.

Also: people *are* medicated without consent from time to time. Sedatives comes to mind. If the guy's punching the emerg doc, he's going under. There's no screwing around. But these judgement calls would be made whether or not the situation had a psychiatric dimension.

Like I said: we could just go back to the old days, and stack them up like cordwood in prison, or leave them sitting in their own feces in alleys. At least they'd have their "dignity".

There are a people recieving medication against there will, although they are usualy going to get physical restraint first, but that is the call of the ED doctor, not a member of the mental health establishment.

The number of children who recieve medication is more proportional to the stigma, embarrasment and problems that the parents have.

People are very free to not take thier medication, it happens quite frequently, and then , just like alcoholics they create a burden on the EDs and jails. But the largest inpatient treatment unit in the United States (LA county jail), is full of people who weren't forced to take thier medications and are only taking them while they are incarcerated.

And I personaly wouldn't have it any other way, there is not benefit to depriving people of thier liberty, I often frustrate family members that they do not have ground for forcing treatment upon thier mentaly ill family member.

The number of people who are in long term care has gradualy decreased since 1980, in Illinois, a very populous state ther are now four state hospitals for the whol;e state, which i think is a good thing, the average lenth of stay in a non-state operated facility inpatient psych unit is about 5 days. The treatemnt model is the medical model, patch em up, prop em up and shove out the door.

I defy any one who states that there is this large horde of overtreated people out there, especialy being treated against thier will. And if they are taking medicine that they shouldn't it is more likely from a GP than a psychiatrist.

This woo notion that there is some state sponsered plan to medicate the nation into submission, is only held by the John Birchers, alternative medication whackos, and people who can't substantiate thier claims, usualy because they are talking about the system the way it used to be, prior to de-institutionalization.

 

[blutoski]

There are a people recieving medication against there will, although they are usualy going to get physical restraint first, but that is the call of the ED doctor, not a member of the mental health establishment.

Sure. I'm just saying that unless Stamenflicker contains the accusation a bit to, say, North America, it's hard to refute. I'm sure psychiatric patients in China are medicated against their will.

And anyway, I agree with his point that vigilance is merited so the state is not given excessive power. We're just quibbling over what 'excessive' would look like, as far as I can tell.

The number of children who recieve medication is more proportional to the stigma, embarrasment and problems that the parents have.

Absolutely. It's the parents driving this. Can you say: "doctor shopping"?

Psychiatrist: "Your kid's a jerk."
Parent: "We're getting another doctor."
Psychiatrist 2: "Your kid's a jerk."
Parent: "We're getting another doctor."
Psychiatrist 3: "Your kid's a jerk."
Parent: "We're getting another doctor."
Psychiatrist 4: "Your kid's a jerk."
Parent: "We're getting another doctor."
Psychiatrist 5: "Your kid's a jerk."
Parent: "We're getting another doctor."
Psychiatrist 6: "Your kid's a jerk."
Parent: "We're getting another doctor."
Psychiatrist 7: "Your kid's a jerk."
Parent: "We're getting another doctor."
Psychiatrist 8: "Your kid's a jerk."
Parent: "We're getting another doctor."
Psychiatrist: "Your kid needs bucketloads of medication."
Parent: "Finally. All the other doctors we saw were quacks."

I recall reading that there was a review that suggested there is this tiny fraction of psychiatrists with a huge number of monthly prescriptions.

This woo notion that there is some state sponsered plan to medicate the nation into submission, is only held by the John Birchers, alternative medication whackos, and people who can't substantiate thier claims, usualy because they are talking about the system the way it used to be, prior to de-institutionalization.

Watched One Flew Over a few times too many, and forgot it was fiction.

 

[stamenflicker]

Have you found that statistic that 30 % of male chilluns are being medicated?

No, you are right, it's only about 5%. So I withdraw my statement...

But I did find this interesting...

"In 1997 alone, nearly five million people in the United States were prescribed Ritalin -- most of them young children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Use of Ritalin, which is a stimulant related to amphetamine, has increased by 700 percent since 1990. And this phenomenon appears to be uniquely American: 90 percent of the world's Ritalin is used in the United States."

Running on Ritalin
by Lawrence H. Diller, M.D.

And this one... http://health.msn.com/centers/adhd/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100109567

"Adult use of antidepressants nearly tripled during the periods of 1988-1994 and 1999-2000. For example, as of December 2004, 10% of adult women were taking antidepressants."

http://www.dpna.org/drugarticles/7society_perscription_drugs.htm


The stat I am likely remembering is that 1/3 of the US population is taking some form of psychotropic drug, or will be prescribed on in their lifetime. I will keep looking.

 

[stamenflicker]

I'm saying this is a circular argument: who says that chickenpox is 'a condition of being sick'. Why is chickenpox not, say, 'a state of being,' just like brown-eyedness?

I don't want to say this isn't a good question, because it is a good question. I guess you are saying its not a good question? I think it is one that we should be asking with regards to some physical conditions and most psychological ones.

It's the kind of question that got homosexuality removed from the DSM.

 

[Meffy]

Someone is certainly being 'preciously disingenuous'. When does "skeptical inquiry" cross the line into idiocy?

The most reliable indicator I know of is the appearance of an avatar depicting a sad old possum. (Not the person with the nick "old possum," who's perfectly fine by me.)

And when will Meffy actually add something in a thread other than a (useless) aroma?

Whenever the occasion calls for it, which is not infrequent. [edit: such as when calling out fallacies and dishonest tactics, such as yours above...] I can only presume that's in discussions that don't interest you, which is likewise fine by me. Here, have a kettle.

 

[hammegk]

... Here, have a kettle.

Nice try. Feel free to compare the nonsense and useless interjections the greatest number of your posts to date consist of with posts of mine.

I agree you won't underatnd the actual substance contained in most of my posts, but that doesn't mean the substance is lacking. Your bon mots are just that.


I will take this opportunity to ask, again, on topic, which 'malady' will first be described in some future DSM; theism, or atheism?

A great many posters here have faith 'theism' is the mental disease; unfortunately for them, they represent a tiny and basically useless minority of humanity. A particularly poor track record exists for societies that tried atheism as the cohesive societal force.

 

[Katana]

Your real question is who decides. I answered that too. We do. Usually with input from medical professionals. These professionals are often referred to as doctors. Doctors could rally around the notion that people with freckles really are sick. We could go along with them. We could force them to enter freckle removal surgery, or commit them to a freckle hospital. We could let them get away with murder because of their freckles. We can do anything we want with backing from the right professionals.

Not really. Society and the rest of the medical community would expect credible evidence that freckles caused ill health.

Or will you admit that a person's self-reported feelings are much different than an objectively gathered body temperature? Will you admit that a survey and an X-ray are really two different things altogether? Will you admit that the observation of one's behavior is much different than observing blockage in their large intestine? Will you admit that no doctor in this country as the right to force me to take Tylenol for my headaches? Or that my family has no right to manage my estate because of my broken rib?

Maybe I'm missing something, but how did you get from the beginning to the end of this paragraph?

Anyway, it sounds to me like you assume that objectively-gathered information is always reliable and correlates with illness. The fact is that even objective information can be misleading. A person with complete obliteration of the joint space of the knee on x-ray may have very little discomfort while another person is in excrutiating pain even with less radiographic evidence of joint damage. Even certain lab tests are only as good as the context of the patient, meaning is the patient symptomatic which is inherently subjective. Reference (or "normal) ranges are determined by having the blood test performed on a large, "normal" population, and then the average is determined. The reference range is created around the average (plus and minus 2 standard deviations from the average).

What that means is certain population of people will still be normal outside of that range while another population will be abnormal within it. So it sometimes comes down to is the subjective experience of the person in determining what you do with a test result.

You can say I'm confusing the issue all you want, but these realities bear out with common logic. You can say I've not thought this through as much as U want, but the reality is that I don't have to believe in anything lacking evidence.

No. You're not believing in something that you simply do not want to. Your argument that the evidence is lacking is simply wrong, but you wish to discount all of it. Much of your argument seems to be based on the fact that illnesses diagnosed by subjective measures are bogus. Would you then discount the existence of migraine (or any) headaches, chronic back pain, or heartburn? These are subjective diagnoses that seldom have objective correlates. Are they invalid then?

 

[Dancing David]

No, you are right, it's only about 5%. So I withdraw my statement...

But I did find this interesting...

"In 1997 alone, nearly five million people in the United States were prescribed Ritalin -- most of them young children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Use of Ritalin, which is a stimulant related to amphetamine, has increased by 700 percent since 1990. And this phenomenon appears to be uniquely American: 90 percent of the world's Ritalin is used in the United States."

Running on Ritalin
by Lawrence H. Diller, M.D.

And this one... http://health.msn.com/centers/adhd/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100109567

"Adult use of antidepressants nearly tripled during the periods of 1988-1994 and 1999-2000. For example, as of December 2004, 10% of adult women were taking antidepressants."

http://www.dpna.org/drugarticles/7society_perscription_drugs.htm


The stat I am likely remembering is that 1/3 of the US population is taking some form of psychotropic drug, or will be prescribed on in their lifetime. I will keep looking.

I think the statistic can be found readily, ten percent of the population is considered to be depressed, and thirty percent of the population will experience depression in thier lifetimes.

I fgorget if that comes from NIMH, APA, or NAMI. But if they choose to get treatment and does it cause functional impairment are different questions. While the DSM defines the criteria for depression as two weeks, I think that most mental health professionals will look at adjustment disorder or stress disorder for the short term depression.

 

[Dave1001]

I think the statistic can be found readily, ten percent of the population is considered to be depressed, and thirty percent of the population will experience depression in thier lifetimes.

I fgorget if that comes from NIMH, APA, or NAMI. But if they choose to get treatment and does it cause functional impairment are different questions. While the DSM defines the criteria for depression as two weeks, I think that most mental health professionals will look at adjustment disorder or stress disorder for the short term depression.

Well, that raises my eyebrow. Ten percent of the population is considered to be depressed?! And 5 million kids on Ritalin. This stuff does deserve more study. What is causing 10% of the population to be in a current state of depression according to the mental health community? What are their proposed solutions? And why so many kids on Ritalin? What are the proposed solutions and directions on that?