Posted by Blue Cheer 1 on January 14, 2002, at 20:41:52
In reply to Re: SPECT » Blue Cheer 1, posted by Dinah on January 14, 2002, at 8:46:43
> Thank you for the information. It isn't really what I would like to hear, but since traveling for a SPECT would be a significant financial investment, I'm glad to have the information to make an informed decision.
> It is so appealing to think that, after numerous diagnoses and multiple medications, there would be an objective test that could at least tell me what was wrong with me. It's become something of a quest for me, although I'm close to giving up because psychiatric diagnosis seems so amorphous anyway.
I know what you mean. I've had at least a dozen diagnoses since 1964, and I'm still picking up new ones. :) I drove up and back to McClean last March for a fMRI. (I just *had* to have it.) I was scheduled for admission there, but when I was told that neuroradiology would only be a consideration as part of my evaluation, I left. It was really a misunderstanding and lack of communication. Now I just keep trying whatever meds I can tolerate (mostly anticonvulsants), and keep hoping for better drugs. My feeling about neuroimaging is that it should be discussed with the psychiatrist who knows you best,and then if s/he thinks there's an indication for it -- they'll refer you to a neurologist.
Just today, I was reading a recent Reader's Digest in a waiting room, and started to read an article about a young doctor, Andrew Newberg, at Penn, and how he was using SPECT scans in neurotheology. I forget the exact name of the book, but the article told about him giving Tibetan Monks and other highly spiritual people SPECT scans at the peaks of their highs. He was actually able to show the areas of the brains that involved "visions" -- something like that. So even imaging doesn't yet diagnose, it otherwise has some interesting applications.
Good luck to you.
poster:Blue Cheer 1