Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: What do GP's really know? ace

Posted by EscherDementian on October 15, 2003, at 10:24:50

In reply to Re: What do GP's really know?, posted by ace on October 15, 2003, at 2:34:30

Hi Ace,
I have some 'bafflements' re: some of your statements in your answer to TonyIreland's question... could you address them please?

> Huh...GP's don't know what they are talking about? That's a huge generalization. GP's can be far better than any psychiatrist. Just like a certain psychiatrist can be far better than a GP.

Your claim 'far better' seems vastly general. The basis is unclear to me... please clarify?
(And - 'ANY' psychiatrist?) It seems to me that you are comparing trunks and and branches. Both hold a postition in the whole: "tree". Could you define 'far better' in terms of the position of GP's and psychiatrists in the whole: "mental health"?

> I actually think psychiatry, as a medical speciality, should be no more. There is no blood tests, smears, xrays. Nothing.

There are MANY medical tests existing in psychiatry: blood, hormones, xray (MRI), etc.etc.... many series of tests, both physical and psychological, are employed in the service of psychiatry. Are you unaware of these tests? Have you forgotten to research a point before using it as criteria for a value judgement? It may serve you to scrutinize your own assumptions before making such a statement.

> they represent unspecified shifts in brain chemistry. Labels don't do a great deal. Their can be an infinite amount of shifts in chemistry- which give rise to disorders which defy a neat diagnostic criteria.

"Labels" as in names? What they "do" is describe and identify, somewhat like the names of parts of a machine that a mechanic knows and uses, or the names of instruments in an orchestra. It occurs to me that the "brain chemistry" that is responsible for disorders is specified in these same ways. Your overall generalization of them as "shifts" "giving rise to" is misleading as a blanket statement. Which is WHY we articulately specify not only categorizations, but dynamics.
Can you give me an example of what you mean by "a neat diagnostic criteria"?

> Psychiatrists typically start people on too higher doses and ween off too fast.

Wow. What are your sources of information for this statement? Can you direct me to the specific proofs you found to support such a huge generalized conclusion?
Or, if you can't, can you name at least 3 documented instances of this?

I'm very curious. Your statements contradict information that i 'know', so i am looking forward to 'knowing' your sources and proofs!





Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:EscherDementian thread:269429