Posted by pullmarine on October 31, 2000, at 22:59:48
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by Miguy on October 30, 2000, at 19:38:03
1. This guy must not have an overabudance of clients if he has the time to blather nonsensically for that long.
>REbuttal: a personal attack that has no impact on the validity of his arguments.
2. How many of you, when ill (whether a "real" illness or not) visit an attorney for answers?
We are not discussing whether psychiatrists can or do help people, but the validity of psychiatriac labels, and whether these labels are founded on fact, and If yes, is it beneficial to label people. Also, what are in the hands of psych's today were in the hands of clergy in days of yore, and they were the one's who guided and helped those who were going through existential or spiritual crises (i try hard to avoid using the word illness, since it is my belief that people go through cycles, just like the seasons and the economy). Unfortunatly, there are no double blind studies to evaluate who does a better job.
3. Does this man go to the doctor for legal advice?
Depends. An attorny may very well discuss the validity of the foundations of legal systems and their subsequent laws and consequences with anthropologists, sociologists, economists, socialists, laymen and many other groups.
4. Furthermore. I'm not saying he can't comment on the subject, but he ought to at least take a serious look at the consensus of the medical community at large. How arrogant to take a stand against something out of your field, having no evidence, when the vast majority of those *in* the field disagree!
Are you suggesting we make conclusions about our world via conscensus? Is that not somewhat medieval?
>
Furthermore, people are often not very critical of their own field of study. For instance, the people who brought an end segragation laws were not lawyers, law-makers or politicians, but laymen who did not need very much education to see the inconsistencies. Often people who are in their own field develop what is called 'myopia'. Hence, criticism from someone who is less familiar with the topic is oftem very enlightening.5. Sure he quoted some doctors. Big deal! They agreed with him!
>even if he had not quoted doctors, his arguments and doubts would still be valid, and fertile ground debate.
5.5 One who is truly logical, wise and honest will present all opposing views and refute them individually.
I have never seen this done, be it in science, politics, or marital arguments. Which leads me to conclude that no one is wise or honest.
6. It's true, there's a whole lot we don't know about the mind. We don't know a lot about the drugs that we use to treat it either, except that they seem to work. The search to determine how will bring greater understanding of the processes that bring the conditions in the first place, and perhaps aid us in their prevention.
>
Do they? there are quite a few flaws in the studies. At anyrate, the issue is not, are there persons with different temperaments and people who are in pain, but do the labels really have any significance, are they based on real facts or based on conscensus, and ultimately, is such labelling beneficial to patients? The feeling among many mental health care workers is that these labels cause a great deal more harm than good, both to the patients, and to the therapy, and this for quite a few reasons (doctors are less likely to listen to a patient's history, patients cling to labels and define their lives within that constraint, thereby reducing recovery.)7. I think I understand where he is coming from. I too have been frustrated with the "mental illness" or "temporary insanity" defense.
That is not the issue. Nowhere in his writing does he mention this.
8. We could argue ad nauseum about whether these are valid, but the fact is that a crime was committed. I want the criminal off the streets regardless of the specific mental processes involved.
>
Me too, depending on whether I hold that law to be just, the crime committed, whether there were extenuating circumstances, and the social and cultural norms in which the 'crime was committed.9. It's true that mental illness is often initiated and perpetuated by life events. But the illness that ensues is very real.
This argument is tautological and still does not answer the question we are debating, which is: does mental illness exist.
10. Since many heart attacks are instigated by severe stress, does that mean that heart disease is a man's denial of his stress problem?
Heart attacts, per se, are not considered to be an illnes. No more than high colesterol or obesity are illnesses. Do high collesterol and obesity impact one's health and well being? probably, but that does not make it an illness.
Then why is it when a life event such as divorce initiates panic attacks it is "all in my head"?
That's exactly what we're debating. My point is that these reactions are normal, though painfull (like a bruised arm), and that although they are not (in my opinion) illnesses, there are pills that can reduce the pain.
>
10. I think this guy wanted to write a paper, but didn't really want to take the time to understand the topic and give it a fair shake.I found him quite enlightning, helpful, and particularly knowledgeable.
(on a side note, I would like to add that I've met many many people in my life, and so far I have not met a single person that considered sane, but I have also never met anyone who I considered to be mentally ill.
john
poster:pullmarine
thread:47722
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001022/msgs/47884.html