Posted by Racer on June 7, 2005, at 22:55:33
In reply to Re: This shocked me !!, posted by linkadge on June 7, 2005, at 20:26:44
First of all, who made the diagnoses in the third world countries? Are they using the same definition? Remember: most mental illnesses are diagnosed based on clinical signs -- which means that there are some rather arbitrary diagnoses made at times. How can you tell the difference, say, between schizophrenia and bipolar with psychosis? (Thank you, Phillipa, for pointing that one out.) Or between one of the slightly psychotic looking personality disorders? If you're getting a diagnosis from a doctor who comes to your local, rural clinic once every three months -- which, to be fair, happens in this country, too, in areas -- how carefully can he delve into your symptomology?
When you discuss recovery, there are similar questions to be asked, too: what do you mean by recovery? Does that mean that you've learned to accommodate your disorder? That your family has made adjustments that allow you to stay safe? Or does it mean what most of us would consider it to mean?
There's another issue, too: social support systems. In many "developing" countries, there are stronger extended family groups who can provide support. Don't even think that that doesn't make a difference! My guess is it counts more than drugs or no drugs in any outcomes. Wouldn't it be a lot easier for us to function if we had a family group that worked together to make sure that we had things like food, a roof, etc?
So, maybe John Nash really did recover without drugs. Maybe he took drugs now and again, when his symptoms got really out of hand. Maybe anti-psychotics are the worst thing since Red Dye #3. I don't know.
What I do know, though, is that any OP-ED piece like that -- *especially* in USA Today -- is less informational, and more propagandal.
poster:Racer
thread:509280
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050606/msgs/509446.html