Posted by Sgbt5 on July 28, 2000, at 10:30:09
In reply to Re: Good evidence-what counts, posted by Steeler Tookahn on July 28, 2000, at 3:22:50
> > I have been reading other groups and web pages that say
> > that there is _no_ good evidence that bipolar disorder
> > exists. Some of these people are very learned, and
> > teach in universities. But I think there is evidence for
> > bipolar illness because people with family members who have it
> > are more likely to get it. I think that shows evidence of
> > a genetic risk (although having a gene may not mean
> > getting the illness). Has anyone seen anything good
> > on the net that addresses this question? Do you have
> > information on this from other sources? Thank you.
>
> Sgbt5,
> I'm not sure if I understand what these people are trying to say. Are they suggesting that bi-polar disorder does not exist at all, or are they contesting a genetic link?
> I don't think too many researchers really dispute the validity of the disorder, but the search for a responsible gene has proved illusive -my guess is that a specific gene (or genes) will eventually be discovered.
> I think most researchers still believe there is a genetic pre-dispostion to the illness but there is a lot of debate going on as to how much of a predictor for the illness a family history portends. I think what you may be reading about is a re-newed focus in learning what external influences might trigger the disease in susceptible individuals.
>
> Steeler
Dear Steeler,I think they are contesting the very idea of mental
illness. This was on the RadPsyNet:
http://www.uis.edu/~radpsy/
Of course there is diversity of opinion there, but
I'm interested in the extreme views of Breggin and
Szaz that mental illness doesn't exist. One move
is to say that the symptoms caused by mental illness
are really caused by other conditions (hormonal ones
would be good suspects). Because there is no kown
etiology (physical cause) or no known gene link,
these people want to say that what we think of as
mental illness is actually social deviance and
should not be treated with medicine.Another move is to say that people who behave in
mentally ill ways, are responsible for what they
do and do it for other reasons such as getting
attention, etc.There are probably more views and I may not be doing them
justice.Haven't
delved into it enough to understand what the-is-no-mental-illness
people think the best way to handle "problems" are.At face, this seems ridiculous, at least to me. Since I've been
psychotic, I really believe I have an illness!
However, if you believe there is no mental illness, you also believe
that all forced treatment is wrong, and that the
power of establishment docs is dangerous. I can
get on board with those ideas. So ther are definite
advantages to this viewpoint.In my wandering on the web, I find that the two
groups seem to be very polarized. You are either
biomedical or other, other being sociological or
in that ballpark.I don't see any inherent conflict between the two
points of view. Being ill is always more than a
physical thing; it is always social, too. But the politics seems very
conflicting right now. I'd like both "sides" to
work on our problems and to work together. I think
there are social, political and sociological
issues that need looking at in regular medecine.Thanks. Anyone have any info?
poster:Sgbt5
thread:41519
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000717/msgs/41570.html