Does mental illness really exist?
May 12, 2013 6:34 AM Subscribe
Does mental illness really exist? There is no scientific evidence that psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are valid or useful, according to the leading body representing Britain's clinical psychologists. In a groundbreaking move that has already prompted a fierce backlash from psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society's division of clinical psychology (DCP) will on Monday issue a statement declaring that, given the lack of evidence, it is time for a "paradigm shift" in how the issues of mental health are understood. Do we need to change the way we are thinking about mental illness?
This post was deleted for the following reason: We just had a post on a US research body making the same move last week, maybe you could put these links in the open thread? -- LobsterMitten
It kinda seems like it might be best to wait until tomorrow when this statement from the British Psychological Society is actually released and we can know what it says to have a thread about it.
Seems unlikely that what they'll say will be a simple as the article is making it sound, which appears to be equivalent to claiming that psychoactive drugs don't exist and observing that someone periodically takes large doses of them would not be valid or useful towards analyzing and treating any health issues they have.
posted by XMLicious at 6:52 AM on May 12, 2013
Seems unlikely that what they'll say will be a simple as the article is making it sound, which appears to be equivalent to claiming that psychoactive drugs don't exist and observing that someone periodically takes large doses of them would not be valid or useful towards analyzing and treating any health issues they have.
posted by XMLicious at 6:52 AM on May 12, 2013
Sorry, but I feel the title of this post is misleading in a way that may cause initial upset to some readers (not intentionally). Interesting links within the post, though.
posted by Wordshore at 6:53 AM on May 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 6:53 AM on May 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Huh - who knew R.D. Lang would be taken seriously by the establishment? (I actually don't know if his thesis is the one taken here, of course... I highly doubt it).
My theory is that "mental illness" in some sense, is a construct based around ones particular method/ability to adapt to their current social surroundings. This includes the structure of the economy, the sociale mores and the legal rules and regulations, along with what is considered "normal" behavior on the part of an individual.
This does not mean that they do not exist, but rather that certain traits manifest themselves as adaptations (or maladaptations if you prefer) in order to cope with root causes that arise from an individual's interaction with the outside world.
That does not meant that they do not exist in the sense that they aren't physiological in nature, because, most assuredly they are, as well. How we respond to them as a society and as a culture and see them, I think, is the question. In the way that, certain psychedelicists propose, that what we could call a Schizophrenic person, would end up being a village Shaman in the context of a given Amazonian tribe, for example.
In other words, "mental illness" is a product of the interface between the individual and the collective and in order to really work towards resolving it, I think working on that interface and on the collective aspect of it is essential, but the collective is unaware of its role, especially in the individualistic Western societies (which, of course, is spreading its tentacles over the earth).
In the meantime, some traditional methods can work, and have been proven to work in studies (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, Medications). In the end, however, those merely work to stop the symptoms instead of getting at the fundamental root causes. It's like cleaning up a dirty river while ignoring the waste-dumping going on from an industrial plant at the mouth of said river.
posted by symbioid at 6:54 AM on May 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
My theory is that "mental illness" in some sense, is a construct based around ones particular method/ability to adapt to their current social surroundings. This includes the structure of the economy, the sociale mores and the legal rules and regulations, along with what is considered "normal" behavior on the part of an individual.
This does not mean that they do not exist, but rather that certain traits manifest themselves as adaptations (or maladaptations if you prefer) in order to cope with root causes that arise from an individual's interaction with the outside world.
That does not meant that they do not exist in the sense that they aren't physiological in nature, because, most assuredly they are, as well. How we respond to them as a society and as a culture and see them, I think, is the question. In the way that, certain psychedelicists propose, that what we could call a Schizophrenic person, would end up being a village Shaman in the context of a given Amazonian tribe, for example.
In other words, "mental illness" is a product of the interface between the individual and the collective and in order to really work towards resolving it, I think working on that interface and on the collective aspect of it is essential, but the collective is unaware of its role, especially in the individualistic Western societies (which, of course, is spreading its tentacles over the earth).
In the meantime, some traditional methods can work, and have been proven to work in studies (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, Medications). In the end, however, those merely work to stop the symptoms instead of getting at the fundamental root causes. It's like cleaning up a dirty river while ignoring the waste-dumping going on from an industrial plant at the mouth of said river.
posted by symbioid at 6:54 AM on May 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
The top pull-quote seems a bit sensationalist. I thought this this move was to add more granularity to the existing system?
Using cancer as an analogy, they've gone from "You've got cancer" to "You've got small cell lung cancer".
posted by Static Vagabond at 7:00 AM on May 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Using cancer as an analogy, they've gone from "You've got cancer" to "You've got small cell lung cancer".
posted by Static Vagabond at 7:00 AM on May 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Interesting article, unnecessarily sensationalist title question by poster.
posted by sophist at 7:09 AM on May 12, 2013
posted by sophist at 7:09 AM on May 12, 2013
« Older Think Super Bowl halftime show on LSD, with added... | By the Lake, Tasmania Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Minor point but the articles don't question the existence of mental illness. Rather, the researchers are saying that maybe treating mental health issues as illnesses with biological causes isn't that meaningful.
Equally interesting on aid organizations offering mental health therapy: posted by Foci for Analysis at 6:48 AM on May 12, 2013 [1 favorite]