Book published this week in UK referring to ME as psychosomatic

[Wildcat]

Is this the same Richard Gipps. Psychotherapist, CBT enthusiast and interest in psychanalytic theory and practice, , oxford academic (philosophy department), works for oxford university Disability Advisory Service. God help us. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/richardgipps

 

[mfairma]

Perhaps this is a minimum, but a mark of a good academic is awareness of knowledge gaps and the refusal to lend professional weight outside of areas of expertise.

 

[Snow Leopard]

It seems Richard Gipps has quite an interest in ME/CFS.

Quite how he can have spent so much time researching the topic and philosophizing about it and yet so woefully have failed to grasp what so many of his school have failed to grasp - that PWME do NOT typically ever assert that psychiatric illnesses are not real - is beyond me.

As for the following, I don't even...
http://clinicalphilosophy.blogspot.com.au/2008/09/how-to-be-duff-analytic-philosopher.html

Most people, when they don't understand what someone means by their choice of words, would simply ask: "what do you mean by '...'?"

Rather than wasting time writing blog post creating a strawman argument...

Seriously, is it so hard to ask and listen?

 

[Sasha]

I agree that whenever we find ourselves commenting on some crappy ME-patient-kicking story, the people we're talking to aren't the people making nasty comments. Our real audience - the people we want to reach - are the many sensible, open-minded people who will be reading all the comments and making their own minds up.

People who make nasty comments (which is not everyone who doesn't share our ideas) are trolls. Do not feed the troll! Don't address or reply to the troll. Just take the troll's arguments apart without referring to the troll. Make a troll look like the nasty idiot that they are, and impress the wider audience with your evidence, logic and calmness.

 

[Ysabelle-S]

As for the following, I don't even...
http://clinicalphilosophy.blogspot.com.au/2008/09/how-to-be-duff-analytic-philosopher.html

That post is the kind of thing that psychologists waste their time on while the biomedical research is quietly going on in the background. It is evidence, if evidence were needed, of just how useless these people are in the face of serious organic illness. His review wasn't much better, since he posted it without paragraphs, so it was a big block of psychological obsfucation and a use of terminology intended to give respectable status to the contents of the book he was reviewing. I see he reformatted it today.

In his outline of the author's book, he mentions the idea that patients derive benefits from illness and behaviours around illness - of course, this rather avoids the more uncomfortable truth that it's psychiatrists, psychologists and other professionals who derive benefit, economic and professional, from their own behaviour around illness. The patients do not derive any benefits from misdiagnosis and lack of treatment. It's psychological abuse to suggest illness, especially in the current climate, is something advantageous.

He also says some of the low star reviewers have an axe to grind regarding the aetiology of the illness. I think he means the science they've been quoting. Which he fails to deal with. Great, let's call science an axe.

Then there's this:

"Speaking of CFS, Dr O'Sullivan takes what I believe to be a brave and honest stance, stating clearly her reasons for taking CFS to be equivalent to ME, why it is an extremely debilitating condition, why it demands serious and caring attention, and why it is best understood psychologically (the not uncommon alexithymia (diminished recognition of one's own emotions) and the frequent difficulty shown in accepting the possibility of psychological origin and maintenance (compare those who suffer with epilepsy or other debilitating conditions who are often far more ready to accept the possible impact of stress) being two of the main such reasons)."

Yes, it's the patients who are in denial. Totally. Not the reviewer and the author who are in denial about the organic cause of ME.

I'd like to shine a brave and honest light into the amount of money being made in the psychosomatic illness field. I'd also like to know what the fallout, professionally speaking, is when the likes of MS is reclassified, and sexual orientation conversion therapy abandoned. Presumably anyone affected by the closing down of 'specialities' like these don't just retire. Do they just move on to another area without retraining? Is there ever a post mortem on all the things these professions got wrong? I feel lessons are not being learned. The bandwagon moves on looking for another group of people to classify and deconstruct. And so it goes on.

 

[Sasha]

He also says some of the low star reviewers have an axe to grind regarding the aetiology of the illness. I think he means the science they've been quoting. Which he fails to deal with. Great, let's call science an axe.

 

[alex3619]

psychanalytic theory and practice,

There you are.

 

[alex3619]

I feel lessons are not being learned. The bandwagon moves on looking for another group of people to classify and deconstruct. And so it goes on.

This is the history of bad psychiatry in a nutshell. Having never been proven right in all of medical history, just arguing they have to be right, when proven wrong they look for a new group.

Its like the gambling fallacy that having lost the bet this time they must be due for a winning streak next time. When in the early days they are not immediately stopped they take that as minor wins. The jackpot must be close!

Yet they have never found their jackpot, they just talk of all the minor wins and chalk them up to evidence of successful gambling.

 

[Wildcat]

Indeed Alex. Psychoanalytic theory on ME does not acknowledge the patients as autonomous humans. The 'can't see wont see' behaviour of psychoanalytic fans when faced with
large amounts of evidence that ME is a biomedical disease not only indicates denialism on a massive scale, but also it infantilises and dehumanises the patients.

 

[Cheshire]

As for the following, I don't even...
http://clinicalphilosophy.blogspot.com.au/2008/09/how-to-be-duff-analytic-philosopher.html

Most people, when they don't understand what someone means by their choice of words, would simply ask: "what do you mean by '...'?"

Rather than wasting time writing blog post creating a strawman argument...

Seriously, is it so hard to ask and listen?

What a meaningless logorrhea... He uses complex words, refers to philosophers and believes that makes him a highly intelligent person.

 

[Chris from Tampa]

It fosters patronising beliefs towards the vulnerable, encourages misogynistic patterns of behaviour (in women too), and allows people to think they can somehow diagnose others and then dismiss them.

This would assume that the problem only affects women. It doesn't. This isn't just a woman's disease. Either that, or I am a really, really ugly woman with oddly shaped body parts.

 

[Chris from Tampa]

It's not just this. I have some very well-meaning relatives who have decided that I should just go to see their physical therapist, who has no expertise in ME, but has helped a lot of people and who deals with the underlying causes of whatever's wrong. Or who saw a guy on the TV say that vitamin D shots are amazing. Because, you know, the research I've done and what I've consulted are nothing compared to the guy on TV. It's all part of the same patronizing attitude that says someone sick is obliged to take your specific approach, whatever that might be.

 

[Ysabelle-S]

This would assume that the problem only affects women. It doesn't. This isn't just a woman's disease. Either that, or I am a really, really ugly woman with oddly shaped body parts.

I think men can be affected by misogyny too. Particularly if they're in an illness group where more women than men are diagnosed.

As for healthy people's recommendations, I sometimes think they believe they're well because they did something right, and people who are ill did something wrong lifestyle-wise, or are doing something wrong now. Hence we need their not-so-expert opinions to get better, or something!

 

[alex3619]

I think men can be affected by misogyny too. Particularly if they're in an illness group where more women than men are diagnosed.

I think this is close to right. There are lots of disparaging comments about men with ME and CFS. There are lots of comments about low testosterone for example, and these are often not about biology but with social implications.

However what differs, in my experience, is medical staff are much less likely to be openly derogatory toward men. We are not, for example, told that getting pregnant will solve our issues.

The sociological aspects of all this are very complicated. I am not sure anyone really has a handle on it.

 

[Chris from Tampa]

I get what you're saying. And I also get that without getting into misogyny or misandry that this just sucks for everyone. I've been really lucky, but I also carry my own baggage that says, "Dude, man up. Be the man. Tough it out and kick its ass."

I think men are more emotional than women in some ways, except we channel it through concepts like honor and toughness and determination--and overpowering things simply through will. Those concepts don't work in this situation. They're harmful. You can't beat the hell out of this. The best you can do is co-exist. Maybe it's not all guys, but I suck at co-existence and at accepting I can't do what I ought to do.

I also think we're more likely to try to handle this alone, to assume we have to be the man and to not open ourselves up to the people who would support us.

But to go back to the beginning, it sucks for everyone, and each person's experience and baggage weigh us down differently--and each person's strengths buoy us differently, for what it's worth.

 

[eafw]

This would assume that the problem only affects women.

No, it doesn't assume that

I think men can be affected by misogyny too.

Yes. "You throw like a girl", for instance, would be totally meaningless as an insult towards men and boys if women and girls were not considered lesser sort of beings that men could be downgraded to.

There are lots of comments about low testosterone for example, and these are often not about biology but with social implications.

Chronic illness is equivalent to "throwing like a girl" .The testosterone comments are one way that people communicate that . Again it comes with a lessening of status for men - which can only exist as long as the concept of lesser status beings (eg weak, hysterical women) does.

 

[SOC]

I wonder how many men with ME/CFS get alternative, and somewhat more acceptable (if incorrect) diagnoses because their misogynistic doctors don't believe that 'normal' men are subject to "hysterical women" diseases. Such doctors are more willing to believe a man's, especially a middle-aged man's, list of symptoms and look for some acceptable label to apply to it, even if the diagnosis doesn't fit all that well.

That all falls apart, of course, if the man is so severely ill that he can no longer work or is otherwise seriously impaired. Then he falls into the "inferior being" category and can be labeled with a "women's" disease.

I suspect that once we have a clear biomarker we will find that the percentage of men in the severe ME category won't change much, but there will be many more men diagnosed with mild ME, shifting the female/male balance a bit closer to 50/50.

Of course, not all doctors are misogynistic asses. Plenty are willing to look at symptoms (and lab results) and make correct diagnoses regardless of the sex or gender of the patient. The problem is there are still too many of the other kind. Not all those misogynistic doctors are men, btw. There are a significant number of female doctors who see themselves as 'strong women' (aka man-like) while viewing other women as 'weak women'.

 

[Chris from Tampa]

There are a significant number of female doctors who see themselves as 'strong women' (aka man-like) while viewing other women as 'weak women'.

Of this I am certain...dealing with this freaking thing on a daily basis requires strength like a lot of people can't fathom. You can't do this every stinking day without developing some pretty intense emotional toughness. It's impressive that most of the traffic here is geared toward searching for improvement and sharing information, rather than complaining and sniping.

The inspiration of watching people who have far more severe situations than mine is one of the most valuable things I get from this forum. All y'all rock.

 

[alex3619]

look for some acceptable label to apply to it, even if the diagnosis doesn't fit all that well.

A lot of medicine works like this, especially psychiatry. Ifs its got a label all is good, apparently.

 

[Aurator]

Mr Gipps has just posted a new blogpost on the book.

Like O'Sullivan, he sees the issue for somatizers as the "intolerability of powerfully painful emotional experience."

He concludes: "The question that I would want to put to the somatiser is, then, not 'Really you are emotionally hurting aren't you?' but rather 'Shall we try to understand together why you aren't emotionally hurting when you need to be?'"

The question I would want to put to Mr Gipps is "Shall we try to understand together why you're so wrapped up in the neatness of your own intellectualizing that you're incapable of noticing what's actually going on in the world around you?"