Posted by Miguy on November 3, 2000, at 11:39:40
In reply to Re: Back at ya » Miguy, posted by pullmarine on November 1, 2000, at 14:39:57
Ok. So you're talking about semantics. The article seemed to me to take the position that the condition (whatever you call it) did not exist. I disagree with that.
If you want to Call it something other than an illness.... I don't know what I think about that. I agree that at times (many times?) these conditions very well could be called emotional crises or something of the sort. But when someone has a natural deficit of serotonin, norepineprhine or dopamine which requires pharmaceutical assistance, I don't see that any different from the person who has to supplement their insulin. Do you? So, if not an illness, what is it? It's certainly a medical condition due to a malfunction or shortcoming of an organ.
Like I said, it appears we may be quabbling over semantics. It sure sounded to me as if the article was speaking of more than semantics though. He seemed to be proposing that disorders of the brain do not exist.
I apologize for assuming that this was your point of view. I run into a lot of people who believe that. It's really not very rational to believe that every organ and system of the body *except the brain* may be diseased, malfunction or be out of balance.