- Messages
- 7
- Location
- Brighton, UK
Hello, I'm a long time listener, first time caller so to speak. As a UK ME sufferer of 6 years standing, I am particularly galled, as are many, that the psychiatric profession has any input in our illness, let alone the great authority it does have.
I had been thinking of writing an essay on why they have involved themselves in this way, breaking so many ethical issues. It was going to be something along the lines of a declining branch of medicine (which it is) making a land grab for a significant patient group or order to maintain its waning influence. Whilst I do believe this to be true I couldn't find enough evidence to really make the theory stick.
However, I did find a very interesting article, in a psychiatric journal no less, that explains with much more lucidity than I ever could, why psychiatry should never be involved here. If it's too heavy a read, the boxes throughout the text provide a useful summary.
Of course I'm preaching to the choir, but it makes such an interesting and informative read, especially when what seems so obvious and ethical to one psychiatrist, has never occurred to White et al. At this point I'd like to say that I am of course not trying to engender sympathy for the psychiatric profession, but if anyone can produce a good argument as to why ME should not be considered a mental illness, it's a psychiatrist.
Below is the final summary of the article, but it's well worth reading the rest, link is at the bottom.
Reasons for thinking that CFS does not have psychological causation
There are often no significant psychological problems
Where psychological problems are present, they are often part of the illness or consequences of it
The absence of a known physical cause does not imply psychological causation
Where psychological factors are present, they are often not the predominant cause
Patients report a flu-like illness from which they have never fully recovered
There is evidence of biological abnormalities of the central nervous and immune systems
The Department of Social Services regards patients’ problems in walking as generally not of psychological origin
http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/8/5/351.full
I had been thinking of writing an essay on why they have involved themselves in this way, breaking so many ethical issues. It was going to be something along the lines of a declining branch of medicine (which it is) making a land grab for a significant patient group or order to maintain its waning influence. Whilst I do believe this to be true I couldn't find enough evidence to really make the theory stick.
However, I did find a very interesting article, in a psychiatric journal no less, that explains with much more lucidity than I ever could, why psychiatry should never be involved here. If it's too heavy a read, the boxes throughout the text provide a useful summary.
Of course I'm preaching to the choir, but it makes such an interesting and informative read, especially when what seems so obvious and ethical to one psychiatrist, has never occurred to White et al. At this point I'd like to say that I am of course not trying to engender sympathy for the psychiatric profession, but if anyone can produce a good argument as to why ME should not be considered a mental illness, it's a psychiatrist.
Below is the final summary of the article, but it's well worth reading the rest, link is at the bottom.
Reasons for thinking that CFS does not have psychological causation
There are often no significant psychological problems
Where psychological problems are present, they are often part of the illness or consequences of it
The absence of a known physical cause does not imply psychological causation
Where psychological factors are present, they are often not the predominant cause
Patients report a flu-like illness from which they have never fully recovered
There is evidence of biological abnormalities of the central nervous and immune systems
The Department of Social Services regards patients’ problems in walking as generally not of psychological origin
http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/8/5/351.full