Only thing I have to say about this new Subthreshold Bipolar Diagnosis is labeling theory really needs to make a comeback. Meanwhile it’s good to see the lot of us shaking our heads, none but the innocents at crazyboards appear to be taking this SBD thing seriously.
As Big Pharma’s base grows increasingly jaundiced I wonder how they’re gonna keep us down on the farm, what marketing plans they’re gonna pull out of their ass upon reading entries like this in Furious Season’s contest to name the newly discovered bipolar illness:
NPN: No placebo Necessary
PRD: Pharmaceutical Rep Disorder
PNLTD: Psychiatrists Need Love Too Disorder
DUMBASS-$ (Diagnosing Usually Mundane Behavior As Seroquel Scripts $oar)
and my favorite:
“Capitalism.”
Yes, more like that.
Also, a little less psychology with a whole lot more sociology. Balance, they say, is good for well-being. I’m in, I’m there, so ready for the balance. Blow the dust off last year’s Paula Caplan post at Women’s E-News, see how Psychiatric Labels Plague Women’s Mental Health:
5/16/06 During mental-health awareness month Paula J. Caplan argues women are over-diagnosed with psychiatric syndromes and symptoms. Many problems, she writes, are not inside women’s heads. They are in external conditions crying out for remedy.
May is mental-health awareness month, but sadly, much of the publicity and public “education” connected with it consists of trying to persuade people they are mentally ill and need medication and psychotherapy. What is little known but frightening is the damage often done to many women simply by giving them psychiatric diagnoses.
Because they received psychiatric diagnoses, women have lost health insurance or had skyrocketing premiums, lost jobs, lost the right to make decisions about their medical and legal affairs and lost, or nearly lost, their lives. Last month, a woman on the West Coast went to court after losing child custody on the basis of having been psychiatrically labeled.
An enormous amount of research–including in the 2004 book I edited, “Bias in Psychiatric Diagnosis”–has shown that women are at even greater risk than men of attracting many serious psychiatric labels.
Even women who never enter a therapist’s office run the risk of being branded by family or friends with one type of demeaning non-psychiatric label or another, such as “cold, bitchy and rejecting” or “overemotional, overly sensitive and needy,” so that even an average woman’s emotions and behavior look pretty terrible compared to those of an average man. It should not be surprising, then, that the psychiatric field is riddled with diagnoses that are used to demean and pathologize women.
Like every therapist I know, I’ve had women come to see me, after having seen another mental health professional, and introduce themselves by saying, “My name is Maude. I’m bipolar,” or “I’m Lula, and I’m a borderline personality.” They do not regard themselves as women who have some problems. Instead, their whole identity has come to be connected with a mental illness.
Identity is so much simpler that way.
A tangent, but I have to share; I’m ridiculously happy that they are most likely taking my diagnosis out of the next version of the DSM. Soon I will be able to have a label I believe in but psychiatry does not. This is the kind of thing that makes me grin.
.
D iagnonsense
S ickens
M e
Can you blame them for wanting to add new “diagnoses” to the Mental Disorder Cookbook ? The same old shit gets boring after a couple of years.
Some definitions for Diagnosis:
*identifying the nature or cause of some phenomenon
*the determination of the nature of a disease
*the act of identifying a disease and its cause
*The process of taking a history and performing an examination in order to decide what is causing a particular symptom, such as headache, so that a correct treatment can be chosen.
*Distinguishing one disease from another; the opinion arrived at as to the nature of the disease.
*intended to identify the cause and nature or extent of disease in a person with clinical signs or symptoms
*the determination by a physician of the cause of a person’s problems, usually by identifying both the disease process and the agent responsible.
A DSM label is NOT a diagnosis.
“Subthreshold”
Gawd. I’d laugh, if only they were joking.
I believe they were going to call these kind of labels “shadow” disorders, so I expect there will be more coming out besides subthreshold bipolar. Shadow would have been more fun in my opinion.
Shadow disorders- ooh, sounds mysterious. That would’ve been soooo much more exciting …psychiatry “shedding light” on the suffering of those who don’t even know that they’re suffering…
Shadow:
*An imperfect imitation or copy.
*A mirrored image or reflection.
*A phantom; a ghost.
*A faint indication; a foreshadowing.
*A vestige or inferior form
*An insignificant portion or amount; a trace
If it weren’t so disgusting and it wasn’t going to hurt people, I would be laughing about it. I keep imagining all the people who are going to get sucked into the mental health system by the allure of having their difficulty with everyday stresses validated by a doctor, and the promises they’ll get about meds that will make it all easier and better.
SBD? I’m wondering if that’s anything like an SBDF, ’cause something stinks.
As a Sociologist, I agree that more emphasis needs to placed on environmental/societal factors. And I also see sometimes there is an abuse of power by Psychologists/Psychiatrists and that is unfortunate.
Having said that, in my experience, which ranges from working with Opiate/Opioid addicts to Gang Members, I see the majority of people who have a vendetta against Psychology feel that way for personal reasons. Usually it’s because they had a negative experience and/or they didn’t like what they were told. This is hardly grounds for dismissing a field that, whether you like it or not, has helped millions of people.
“Commercial Punk Rock”, what the Hell is that? Is that like “Jumbo Shrimp”?
Fairlane,
You assume animosity for psychology not in evidence anywhere on this blog, and from there create a black/white dichotomy — psychology OR sociology. That exclusion is what we’re trying to fix, as per the typical load of rubbish your like brings to the table.
There is no such thing as commercial punk rock. Re-read the sentence with attention to what it says. Only one thing in it can be classified as commercial. See? Ya need to think around here.
Your arrogance is interesting to say the least.
“load of rubbish your like brings to the table.”
My “like”? Wow, My “like”. You know nothing about me. Nothing.
As for “thinking”.
Here’s the irony in your comment.
“and from there create a black/white dichotomy…That exclusion is what we’re trying to fix”
My comment on punk was a joke. (Anyone who grew up listening to punk would get it). Apparently said joke is beyond the comprehension of people who “create a black/white dichotomy”.
“You assume animosity”
No, no assumptions. You are angry without a doubt. Concrete thinking is something I forget most people do, and apparently living at the edge of emotion is a problem for people of that “like” as well.
“Can you blame them for wanting to add new “diagnoses” to the Mental Disorder Cookbook ? The same old shit gets boring after a couple of years.”
If that’s not “animosity”, what is it? This is after all the “Comment” section, which means you can also respond to other “Comments”.
And my comment was also a general statement about a growing trend. But apparently “Status Quo” is all that is acceptable here around such “BIG” Thinkers. The vastness of your intellect is blinding.
I guess my “Punk Rock” joke is even more ironic now.
My bad. Clearly you’re a sweet-talker.
But why such talk about vendettas against psychology? On this thread. And about people who rilly should be defensive about psychology because in your vast experience, psychology informed them of how truly evil they are. Pay no mind to the content of the post, which is about inclusion of two academic disciplines in the world-view of those who are steered exclusively toward psychological explanations of the human condition. And that gotcha remark concerning my punk rock cred was actually charming, but being “aNgrY!!11!” means I can’t take a joke. Huh.
“Can you blame them for wanting to add new “diagnoses” to the Mental Disorder Cookbook? The same old shit gets boring after a couple of years.”
If that’s not “animosity”, what is it?
The voice of experience, and it’s privileged here.
“Having said that, in my experience, which ranges from working with Opiate/Opioid addicts to Gang Members, I see the majority of people who have a vendetta against Psychology feel that way for personal reasons. Usually it’s because they had a negative experience and/or they didn’t like what they were told. This is hardly grounds for dismissing a field that, whether you like it or not, has helped millions of people.”
Fairlane,
I am not an opiate addict nor a gang member, but rather a productive member of society that dedicates a large amount of my time and energy working with a national agency that offers a great deal of services to families, children, educators and law enforcement.
I have no vendetta against psychology. It has been my chosen field of study, in which I have found enormous value and satisfaction. I would be much further along in my life, educationally and career wise by now if I hadn’t spent years of my life drugged by psychiatrists for an inaccurate label of bipolar disorder. They nearly killed me. They’ve made me physically ill, and they have also committed physical violence against me that has caused permanent damage.
So negative experience with psychiatry- YES! Much like many other people. Animosity ? Absolutely. Psychiatry, whether you like it or not, has also hurt millions of people.
“Psychiatry, whether you like it or not, has also hurt millions of people.”
I’d like to see evidence of that before believing it. My mommy taught me not to trust strangers.
And your negative experience is “your” experience. That has more to do with Quality of Care not Psychiatry/Psychology. And there’s no doubt the Quality of Care is shitty far too often.
I’ve never seen the “over diagnosing” in any of the places I’ve worked.
By the way, I’m a Sociologist.
This is what I said in my first comment.
“As a Sociologist, I agree that more emphasis needs to placed on environmental/societal factors. And I also see sometimes there is an abuse of power by Psychologists/Psychiatrists and that is unfortunate.”
A lot of knee jerk reacting going on.
My point about psychology being demonized was more of a general comment about the state of things. The article cited in the post contains vague characterizations about Psychology.
Just as easily as someone can be convinced they are “sick”, they can also be convinced they are not “sick”. Scientologists are good for that, and I know you’re not Scientologists. (I just would have made fun of you if you were).
What happened to you is unfortunate. But the people I worked with had a hard time getting any care, and now there’s a growing movement saying they don’t really need it.
Environmental factors become biological. The idea that these women the author speaks of have problems not “within” but “without” is ludicrous. The problems without become problems within, since it has been demonstrated time and again that stress, depression, fear, anxiety etc associated with daily life alters people’s brain chemistry. We are electricity and chemicals.
“I am not an opiate addict nor a gang member, but rather a productive member of society”
Lastly, you people are pretentious.
“The universe is unjust. The secret of happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible, horrible, horrible…you must feel it deeply and not brush it aside”
How apropos.
Ta Ta
What are you so damn angry about , and why the hell is this so important to you ? WE- are pretentious ? You are certainly correct that there is a lot of knee-jerk reaction going on. I’ve noticed how good you are at taking your own feelings and behavior and projecting it onto others.
“And your negative experience is “your” experience.”
That’s correct, it is. But it also shares a common thread with the experience of many other people. What is this difficulty you have in tolerating the negative experience of others ? It appears to be quite distressing for you. I have to wonder how that impacts your work.
“By the way, I’m a Sociologist.”
Yeah, you’ve said that a couple of times, and so what???
It lends zero to your credibility,and in light of your obvious disturbance about these issues, it seems that you are taking this all very personally for reasons that are not clear.
Perhaps it is just that none of this is in line with your own insular way of thinking. http://fairlane.wordpress.com/
“What happened to you is unfortunate. But the people I worked with had a hard time getting any care, and now there’s a growing movement saying they don’t really need it.”
It’s a little more than unfortunate dear. It is no surprise to me at all that the people you “worked with” had a hard time getting any care. I’m guessing your own attitude had a role in that.
The growing movement is not saying that people don’t need mental health treatment. It is taking a look at the ineffectiveness of the system, and the treatments that are currently being used, along with the damage they are causing. It is questioning those practices.That is only a small bit of progress.
Have no fear, your kind will survive. That is what is truly unfortunate.
http://fairlane.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/the-not-so-great-mental-illness-debate/
Could this be the real reason you came here and tried to derail this thread ? or this :
http://fairlane.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/anti-social-personality-disordersociopathy-and-why-paris-hilton-should-be-incarcerated/
I guess this is really all about you fairlane. So, before you move on to “do a more thorough job yourself” in explaining antisocial PD or BPD to the world over at your blog, you might want to stop and examine your own narcissistic tendencies. I know you’ll have your ‘ol DSM handy.
You came here looking for an argument, which is why you chose to completely ignore the article itself and pick out only what you found threatening.
“The narcissist perceives every disagreement – let alone criticism – as nothing short of a threat. He reacts defensively. He becomes indignant, aggressive and cold. He detaches emotionally for fear of yet another (narcissistic) injury. He devalues the person who made the disparaging remark.” – Dr.Sam Vaknin
Your manipulative behavior has succeeded in getting you the attention you’ve been seeking here. Too bad it took me a little while to see what you were doing.
ZOMG we’ve been attempting reason with our first unvarnished wingnut troll. She’s a culture warrior! Duck!
Bolagna! Spaceship America! “Third world” countries!
Thanks for the Links, Mem, now I must go Gouge out my Eyes. Then we’ll have Blood ice cream and TeenScreen for all!
I came here because I saw a link and thought it would be interesting, and I decided to comment b/c most people just come into other people’s blogs and rarely comment. I was simply trying to add to the discussion. I’m not “projecting” anything. (You should really look up irony b/c your comments are chock full of it).
If you read the post about Mental Illness you’d know it was a response to Richard Vatz who is a Scientologist Hack. Among other things Vatz lobbies for the dismissal of the Insanity Defense, specifically, at least from what I read, in relation to women suffering from Post-Partum Depression/Psychosis. I’d think you’d be upset about that as well considering you’re a woman. And also, because of the “Celebrity” Scientologists (Cruise, Travolta et al) such blather is gaining steam, which is dangerous.
My point of mentioning that I’m a Sociologist is one, because it was apparent in the first response it was assumed I’m a Psychologist. Second, to demonstrate that I agree too much emphasis is placed on genetics, etc and not enough on environment.
It has nothing to do with “Narcissism”.
In fact, I did read the article, and I looked around your blog. For example, it says at the top, “Please, no Scientologists.” Silly me assumed you’d see my comment in that same vein.
The only thing I’m guilty of is “assumption”.
I’m not defensive at all. I was simply taken aback by the vitriolic response.
Your attempts at dime-psychiatry are way off base.
Maybe you should spend more time looking at yourself, and how quickly you lash out at people.
I didn’t see the “Agree with Us or Else” sign. I wasn’t aware this was a Republican blog. My apologies.
“I came here because I saw a link and thought it would be interesting, and I decided to comment b/c most people just come into other people’s blogs and rarely comment.”
I guess you have the data to back this up too. You’re a generous character. It was so thoughtful of you to share, although this blog is not lacking for comments- unlike your own. I think you figured you could get an audience here, and unfortunately it was given to you.
“My point of mentioning that I’m a Sociologist is one, because it was apparent in the first response it was assumed I’m a Psychologist.”
It was apparent ? Where did that appear to you ? Who assumed that you were a psychologist? You clearly stated in your opening comment that you are a sociologist. You seem to believe that makes you more credible here, as if what you say is steeped in the objectivity of scientific observation and a wealth of clinical experience. That’s why you mentioned it again. Talk about pretentious! and arrogance ??? Whew! if that’s not projection, then I don’t know what is. Guilty of assumptions….uh huh.
Republicans? Now that’s just dirty talk. Are you trying to hurt our feelings?
Troll on.
Hell, after all this b.s. I think I need to propose a new “diagnostic” category for the DSM. I’ll call it MHPPD or Mental Health Professional Personality Disorder. I’ll be working on defining those criteria, and as soon as I have them down, I’ll do a post on my own blog. But for now, disturbed MHPs can be assessed using these guidelines:
http://thememoryartist.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/career-exploration-thinking-of-becoming-a-professional-psychiatric-patient/
Flawed,
I can’t believe you left this out of your copy and paste of the above post at fairlane:
“If a single child is going to destroy the chance for others to learn then good riddance to bad trash! (The world still needs ditch diggers and infantry men). ” …. and psych patients.
“Among other things Vatz lobbies for the dismissal of the Insanity Defense, specifically, at least from what I read, in relation to women suffering from Post-Partum Depression/Psychosis. I’d think you’d be upset about that as well considering you’re a woman.”
Shit! Fairlane. That would really suck. I was hoping to use that post-partum insanity defense someday.
“I didn’t see the “Agree with Us or Else” sign.”
That’s cause you’ve got it over at your place. Or is it that you just don’t like what you are being told ?
“Your attempts at dime-psychiatry are way off base.”
You seem to use the terms psychiatry and psychology interchangeably. There ain’t no psychiatry going on here, unless labeling others is what you assume psychiatry to be about.
And “dime-psychiatry” – what would that be ? A baggie of Seroquel for ten bucks? It certainly would cut the medicaid/medicare costs now wouldn’t it. Big Pharma would never let that happen.
Welp, it all ran together after a while, nothing but a keyboard pounding orgy of condemnation, gave me a bellringer of a migraine.
Ah , yes. I understand.