Re the article by cited by Stephen in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/health/21mind.html?_r=3&ref=science
Joan Warmbold writes: >What I find baffling about the article, however, is that the only >issue discussed by the author, who happens to be a psychiatrist, >is that those with serious mental illness shouldn't have to live with >a stigma because after treatment they can behave fairly normally... >What the author never discusses is the possibility that the five people >who had been diagnosed with a "serious mental disorder" had >possibly originally been misdiagnosed. The reason the author, Sally Patel, focuses on the stigma issue is because that was what the documentary was about. Unfortunately at one point in her article she seriously misled her readers by writing: "But the real test came at the end of the week. Could a panel of experts - a psychiatrist, psychologist and a psychiatric nurse - tell them apart? They could not... The point was made: even trained professionals cannot reliably determine mental illness by appearances alone." These words make me wonder if Sally Patel actually watched the programme, or checked out the BBC website, before writing her column: "How Mad Are You?" http://tinyurl.com/5oacoo Five of the ten participants had *in the past* suffered from a mental disorder, and the point was that such a personal *history* did not mean that they could be differentiated from their fellows. At least three of these had largely overcome their disorder, so there was no reason why "trained professionals" should have been able to recognise they had a history of mental disorder. (The two others had made considerable progress in dealing with their problem.) For instance, Stuart suffered from bipolar disorder, but since being on medication, exercising, and making use of support services, his mental state had stabilised. Yasmin had suffered from depression, but after CBT, group art therapy and taking up voluntary work activities her life had been turned round, and so on. So the programme was not about whether people currently suffering from mental disorders could be so recognised from their behaviour in various situations, but was intended to emphasise that people with a history of mental disorders should not be viewed differently from anyone else. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org *************************************************************************** ********** Re: [tips] On recognizing mental illness Msylvester Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:56:13 -0700 I thought that one criterion for psychiatric diagnosis was "personal discomfort" and this criterion depends on the personal experience and may not be observed objectively.I guess from what Joan and Stephen are asserting,if we encountered the Craigslist murderer we would judge him as normal.I support "introspection" Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida Re: [tips] On recognizing mental illness Joan Warmbold Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:44:51 -0700 Thanks Stephen for this fascinating article about the the inability of psychiatric "experts" who observed 10 people for hours on video to determine which half of the group did and did not have a serious mental disorder. This is particularly surprising as these 10 folks were asked to perform relatively stressful activities. The diagnoses made by the trained experts were no better than chance with only 2 of the 5 serious disorders being properly identified and 2 of the 5 without any type of DSM diagnosis being identified as having one. What I find baffling about the article, however, is that the only issue discussed by the author, who happens to be a psychiatrist, is that those with serious mental illness shouldn't have to live with a stigma because after treatment they can behave fairly normally. Of course, this reference to having received effective treatment needs to be taken on faith as no real evidence of such is provided. What the author never discusses is the possibility that the five people who had been diagnosed with a "serious mental disorder" had possibly originally been misdiagnosed. This would seem to be a very important consideration, especially considering that the experts who viewed these 10 folks for hours showed a profound deficiency in their diagnostic skills. Or did they? Joan [email protected] [tips] On recognizing mental illness sblack Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:11:59 -0700 > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/health/21mind.html?_r=2&ref=science > > Stephen > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] > 2600 College St. > Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
