Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
...The very nature of psychiatric illness presents a challenge to SBM and as with this blog post by Harriet Hall (Psychiatry Bashing) I can't see any option but to pursue a pragmatic approach to improvement to the science of mental health and the delivery of psychiatric services.
IVI
Are you claiming that psychiatry as delivered in modern health services does not provide any amelioration or cure of symptoms ?
the only way to make progress is by negotiating appropriate intervention of psychiatric focussed staff/interventions in the support of M.E/CFS patients.
IVI
Psychiatry is going to continue to be part of M.E/CFS management. One may or may not like this - but it is how it is, and the only way to make progress is by negotiating appropriate intervention of psychiatric focussed staff/interventions in the support of M.E/CFS patients.
I disagree that we should see psychiatric intervention as a part of ME/CFS treatment. The majority of ME/CFS patients do not have psychiatric problems, according to your own statistics, and it is not a central aspect of the disease.
It makes no more sense to incorporate psychiatrists into our treatment by default than it would to do so for diabetes or cancer patients.
Another useful ploy is the false accusation. First, create a situation where you are wrongly accused. Then, at a convenient moment, arrange for the false accusation to be shown to be false beyond all doubt. Those who have made accusations against both the company and its management become discredited. Further accusations will then be treated with great suspicion. Always remember that people’s memories are very frail, remembering only both the high spots and the lows of a person’s career, and then seldom remembering accurately. People believe in the facts that it suits them to believe.” p176.
We need a repository of claims and rebuttals. Then we can reissue the rebuttals every time the irrational claims are made.
Hi ukxmrv, exactly. I am a fan of the original Machiavelli writings. With respect to the last tactic, the spin is about selected instances but the implication is that its about a whole lot more. So if one person is inappropriately critical, then all criticism is inappropriate. If one person has made threats then a whole lot have, they are militant radicals. However it goes the other way too. If one psychiatrist is deeply manipulating the system, then all psychiatrists are deeply manipulating the system. Use of such arguments are based on a fallacy. If some, then all.
Don't attack motives. Attack claims, supposed facts and reasoning. Further, frame the claims as questionable, provide counter-facts and show the reasoning is fallacious.
Attacking individuals, especially motives which are impossible to prove, is pointless. By all means name those individuals when you state their claims and show their claims are irrational or counter-factual.
I would again press on the point that they are failing to publish results in the form that they promised in the original trial protocol.When they imply our FOI requests are inappropriate in some way, don't call them names. Do ask them why they want to suppress free speech and transparency in science.
I think this is a good idea but we need to take care that it is of good quality and doesn't just become a selection of out of context quotes.We need a repository of claims and rebuttals. Then we can reissue the rebuttals every time the irrational claims are made.
[quote="alex3619, post: 313438, member: 786" There are many fallacious arguments put forward in support of the Dysfunctional Belief Model. I think many of us could use psychological and psychiatric help, but how can we trust them when nearly all that most of the think about our illness is fallacious? To get appropriate psychological or psychiatric support we first need to debunk the nonscience. Only then can we begin to have trust in psychiatry
I have no idea what your point is. Alex wrote “There are systemic problems pervading all of psychiatry” in a context that followed from Phoenix Down’s equation of psychiatry with crystal healing. Alex subsequently acknowledged that there are aspects of psychiatric care that are (at least contingently) valuable. But Alex’s overall presentation was of psychiatry ‘in crisis’ and of questionable validity, following seemingly without criticism, Phoenix Down’s and Nat asa’s disparaging posts. To be absolutely clear I have no problem with anyone criticising any area of medicine – I’d just like the criticism to have at least some reference from outside a purely M.E/CFS focus.The person you were quoting (and everyone else, as far as I've seen), never claimed that. In fact, they are specifically attacking certain theories and applications of treatments in the realm of psychiatry, and you are the one that persistently equates that to attacking the entire discipline.
Explanation is not excuse – it’s just what is. Expecting psychiatry as a profession or psychiatrists as individuals to act with greater moral rectitude than any other human or group of humans, is absurd. They like us are players in the system, and if we want change then we either have to achieve adjustment to the system (or more improbably) change the system. There’s more chance of getting change if you can recruit other players to your cause – including those you are currently in competition with.Neither the bureaucratic nor the commercial models excuse the unscientific behavior displayed by the psychiatrists that are promoting those theories, nor the tolerance of that behavior.
Whether you and I agree or not is irrelevant – it’s about what is happening at the service level that is at issue. The point about ‘majority’ is to misunderstand how services are delivered in optimised health services. The notion of a single ‘specialist’ with a ‘discrete’ patient list does not reflect clinic or hospital contracted services, where multi disciplinary teams and cross referral are becoming the norm.I disagree that we should see psychiatric intervention as a part of ME/CFS treatment. The majority of ME/CFS patients do not have psychiatric problems, according to your own statistics, and it is not a central aspect of the disease.
A case where – search before you type – would seem to apply:It makes no more sense to incorporate psychiatrists into our treatment by default than it would to do so for diabetes or cancer patients.
Hello Alex ( my bolding )
I don't share this premise, at least on a personal basis ( even allowing for trust and the debunking of nonscience )
1) How many is many ?
2) Who might be helped and why ?
3) Why are some helped and not others ?
4) To what extent might they be helped ? Can it be measured, or is everyone different ?
5) I could go on
When you have lost the power to cry, help will never come in a white coat.
Perhaps this is a numbers game; and the ''many'' refers to those that are able to leave the house; able to withstand the journey; able to find a partner/friend as you navigate your way through uncharted territory; able to absorb the financial costs. If so, then please forgive me.
When medicine has found a way to get me back on my feet, the psychiatrists are welcome to try and help me back into civvy street. Infact, I would welcome any attempts to further my progress. Until then.....
We are all different, but in all sincerity I had no idea to what extent, until I became a member of PR.
Kind regards, Mark
A case where – search before you type – would seem to apply:
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Liaison-psychiatry-faculty-report.pdf
http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/32/12/461
http://www.ghpjournal.com/article/S0163-8343(05)00064-2/abstract
http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7558/65
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pon.1185/abstract
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7493/702
http://www.beaumont.ie/index.jsp?p=272&n=373
IVI
Long-term medical conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have significant adverse effects on an individual’s quality of life.
Patients with medical illness are three to four times more likely to develop a psychiatric disorder than a member of the average population (NHS Confederation, 2009).
Having both a psychiatric and medical illness delays recovery from both (HM Government, 2011).
The presence of comorbid psychiatric disorders can lead to decreased adherence to treatment, increased health service costs and poorer outcomes (Naylor & Bell, 2010)....
The total health expenditure on patients with diabetes and depression is 4.5 times higher than for those patients with diabetes who do not have depression (Naylor & Bell, 2010)....