Talk:Essay:Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi Rob. I'm not going to raise any objections to the homosexuality section, as that's been discussed extensively elsewhere. But I can't quite manage to resist commenting on the depression section. You seem to be saying that antidepressants are basically a scam. I will grant you that they're not perfect and don't work for everyone, but they certainly work for some people. How can that be if there's no biological basis? Also, to say that depressed people aren't treated with psychotherapy anymore is simply wrong. Murray 15:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Alcohol works as a mood elevator, too. What the Depression section does, is introduce the basic difference between a "disorder" and a "disease", common to all fields of medicine. In the medical specialty of psychiatry, "mental diseases" are delineated from "mental disorders", and both can be characterized as "mental illness". This is something laypeople fundamentally are unaware of. The case study of Depression is interesting, whereas Homosexuality was regarded as a "mental illness", and classified as a "mental disorder" and later downgraded, Depression was upgraded from a "disorder" to a "disease" based upon speculative science. From all three topics examined, we see research is ongoing, and "patients" are routinely used as experimental subjects. My next comment perhaps belongs on the Talk: Homosexuality page: Does anyone see the problem with the APA position statement that, OTOH condemns RT advocates for ethical issues, WOTOH encourages further experimental research? RobS 15:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
You didn't really answer the question. The discussion of disorder vs. disease is somewhat misleading. No such distinction is made in the DSM. The primary diagnosis relevant to depression is Major Depressive Disorder, and others are Bipolar Disorder (I and II), Dysthymic Disorder, etc. Of course patients are used as experimental subjects - how else will we learn more? But they're never used unwittingly or without providing informed consent to participate in any study. Your final statement is wrong in that the APA is not encouraging research on RT, that is a misinterpretation of the position statement. Murray 17:23, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
S 174 just passed the Senate, allowing non-consent.
The reference to Depression, the "discovery" of bipolar disorder is based upon speculative science. There was no clear definitive findings that Depression was organically based, only theories and Pharmacuetical companies making the claim that it was, and that it could be treated with medication if the APA would sign onto a position statement to get approval from the FDA to allow dispensing of experimental drugs. This clearly stands in contrast to the position taken on homosexuality a decade earlier, where again all known "theraputic" remedies had been exploited, with mixed results, so the diagnosis was dropped. In this circumstance, all known theraputic remedies had been exploited with mixed results, so the "disorder" was suddenly discovered to be organically based (using specualtive research), and new treatments recommended.
What are we to gather from this? Depression is not political, as the APA clearly states was the driving force behind its decision to downgrade homosexuality. Science did not downgrade homosexuality. RobS 17:43, 31 May 2007 (EDT)