| ace_berzerker 2006-09-27, 2:28 am |
| roastfreesteel@yahoo.com wrote:
> You can't bump into someone on the street and make the kind of
> subjective adn value laden judgments in that definition. I know
> someone who was supposedly psychotic. Later it became clear the person
> was dealing with memories of childhood abuse. Nowadays we have the
> catch all PSTD diagnosis, so there is a chance that a person in saying
> and doing similar things would be treated with MORE RESPECT FOR THE
> PROCESS THEY ARE GOING THROUGH, rather than having their behaviors and
> words treated as symptoms and analyzed as if all speech and actions
> mean the same things in all situations. (psychiatrists tend to have
> the same cultural blinders that the rest of us have)
>
> What other states now defined as psychotic are actually the organism's
> attempt at rebalancing. I am into making the case that all people if
> simply supported thruogh these states will heal themselves, nor am I
> saying, as perhaps John would, that drugs should not be prescribed in
> all cases. But the mindset that judges the atypical as pathological
> has done us untold damage.
my aim was to flush out john's thinking. the definition i posted wasn't
meant to be all-inclusive, or to suggest that lay persons should be
authorized to take away someone else's freedom. the doc, having
better knowledge of the patient, and a broader clinical grasp of
what's pathological, makes the judgment that counts. in a setting where
the patient is seeking treatment, i would hope competent psydocs are
careful enough not to mistake the atypical for the pathological,
especially when prescribing medications.
|