On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:33:11 -0700, Allen Esterson wrote: >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."
As Allen makes clear below, there are certain ambiguities about the situation including comparing people with an acute episode of mental illness with people with chronic illnesses (and how well that illness is being managed). Perhaps Dr. Satel has an interest in presenting how well people with mental illness do after treatment. Maybe not. Dr. Satel is a curious character and the Wikipedia entry on her seems to be lacking info on her positions, some (all?) have been controversal: see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Satel People with a particular political orientation may find her positions on drug addiction, mental illness, the role of economic and social disparities in causing and maintaining illness, and kidney transplants refreshing and exciting (if not exactly scientific). For some of her writing on these topics, see: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjMzMGE4MGVlMGNjMzE1Y2ZmM2U3MzZmZTVjZWMwNGY= http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzQxYzA5YWQxNjE4NGQxMDk2YTRjZTI3N2Q1NzQyYTc= and so on. Some psychologists, I believe, had developed a positive opinion of Dr. Satel because she seemed to be quite skeptical about some of phenomena like therapeutic touch. What their opinion of her positions on others issues is not known. However, because she is more of a policy advocate instead of an empirical researcher, one should be rightly skeptical of what exactly she is selling. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] >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. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
