Extremely important clarifications about the entire program and the present reality of the folks who had previously been diagnosed with mental disorders. Thanks much Allen.
Joan [email protected] > 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]) > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
