Posted by Alan on December 21, 2001, at 23:10:03
Is it true that anything in the DSM IV is a disorder simply because it does not have a biologically proven underpinning, a definite pathology, and therefore is not observeable under the microscope? Can't see depression therefore it's a disorder - even though working backwards, depression and schizophrenia only treatable by medicinal intervention in many cases? Confusing to me.
I hear that this is a controversial issue in psychychiatry/psychology with the drug companies lined up on one side saying disease and the psychologists on the other side saying disorder.
depression - disease?
schizophrenia - disease?
panic - disorder?What gives anyway?
What schools of thought are there on the subject? Does it matter where you're coming from as to how it's viewed differently? Is it a political and moralistic battle mixing free will issues with medicine?
For instance, I believe my chronic anxiety is a disease because it only responds to chemical intervention. Is it simply a matter of we haven't found the physiological roots of the disorders' cause YET so that it can be classified as disease?
Alan
poster:Alan
thread:87644
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20011213/msgs/87644.html