Richard Sykes. Physical or mental? A perspective on chronic fatigue syndrome. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2002) 8: 351-358 doi: 10.1192/apt.8.5.351
http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/8/5/351.full
http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/8/5/351.full
This paper examines the question of whether chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), often known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), should be classified as a physical or mental illness.
The distinction made between physical and mental illness has far-reaching effects. Within medicine there are lists of illnesses considered to be mental disorders which are distinguished from those known as physical disorders. These lists appear in official classifications such as the ICD and the DSM. They are reflected in textbooks which only deal with illnesses considered to be mental ones. Although there is much dispute over some illnesses, there is also a large measure of agreement within medicine about which are to be called mental illnesses and which are not.
This demarcation is reflected in many other ways within medicine. There is a medical speciality which deals with mental illnesses (psychiatry), there is a branch of the National Health Service which deals with mental illnesses (the Mental Health Services), there are specially trained personnel (such as psychiatrists) who deal with people who have mental illnesses and there are special medications (e.g. antidepressants) and other treatments which are considered appropriate for those with mental illnesses.
In the wider world, the distinction between mental and physical illness is also widely used, with similar far-reaching effects. Regrettably, many of these are negative for people whose illnesses are classed as mental. In employment, those with a mental illness label may find themselves at a disadvantage; in financial matters, penalties may be imposed by insurance companies, pensions agencies or the state Benefits Agency; in society generally, there may be stigma.