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])
