Against "Schizophrenia"

[PanAtheist]

New Scientist Magazine has an article this week, with some info on the disadvantages of the word and classification "schizophrenia", and about a campaign to get rid of.

Essentially (if I get the gist) it's not a biological category, it is just a catch-all for a variety of conditions, which have, probably, several and diverse causes ....And it is unhelpful label for patients, and for those treating them, and society generally.


Down With Schizophrenia @ New Scientist Mag
(Full Access for subscribers only)

David Kingdom, New Scientist Mag wrote

a century of trying to unpick the biological basis of schizophrenia has made very little progress, and has been utterly unhelpful to patients. The assumption that there is a biological cause, rooted in the brain and stripped of environmental influence, leaves patients thinking they have no hope of recovery. It also causes others to distance themselves from the patient in a way that disorders such as anxiety and depression do not. In contrast, there have been major advances in understanding the social and psychological context of psychosis in general, and this has led to the development of successful interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy, for example, can help treat symptoms. And work with people who hear voices has challenged the assumption that the phenomenon is inevitably pathological. This realisation has transformed the way that voices are considered, and helped many individuals to cope with stigmatisation and unhelpful labels, and to deal with their hallucinations more positively.

It's an interesting article, worth reading in full.

[nkb]

Pan,
Why don't you just kick Cal in the nuts and anally rape him with a Louisville Slugger while you're at it?

[Gnosital]

"The assumption that there is a biological cause, rooted in the brain and stripped of environmental influence...."

Who says anything like that??? Not even general psych texts for community college students promote such an ignorant opinion.

Also, what mental disorder ISN'T "rooted in the brain"??

I don't argue that the term is less than helpful, and there are already clear neurobiological distinctions between psychosis with positive versus negative symptoms. In behavioral neuroscience the suspicion that schizophrenic psychosis may in fact be a common term for a variety of disorders has been around for many years.

I think this is a case of a guy trying to make news out some something that's not so new.

PLUS! (I just re-read the first line you quoted from this assclown!!!) A hundred years ago they used to lock psychotics up in asylums or spin them or shock them or do frontal leukotomies on them or just let them rot. Now they get to take a pill and most manage to continue having a life. The meds do have some nasty side effects, but I'd say it's a damn site better than lifelong incarceration in a madhouse. "A century of research has been utterly unhelpful" my ass.

This David Kingdom guy is a dumbass.

Many MANY cases of mental and emotional distress/imbalance directly stems from mental/emotional trauma rather than a born chemical imbalance.

I strongly dislike blanket labels such as ADD, Bi-Polar disorder, etc. Everyone I know that was nuts or had issues had... well... issues. Yes, some human beings are stronger than others, however I think rather than masking problems with drugs and labels maybe medical professionals should investigate the root causes.

All criminals are mentally sick, or they would not commit crimes. Many of those that have behavioral health issues have had bad childhoods, come from poor communities, have been sexually abused, etc. Trauma can cause damage, plain and simple... there is only so much the human mind can take or be exposed to.

[Gnosital]

MrsMoe wrote

Many MANY cases of mental and emotional distress/imbalance directly stems from mental/emotional trauma rather than a born chemical imbalance.

I strongly dislike blanket labels such as ADD, Bi-Polar disorder, etc. Everyone I know that was nuts or had issues had... well... issues. Yes, some human beings are stronger than others, however I think rather than masking problems with drugs and labels maybe medical professionals should investigate the root causes.

All criminals are mentally sick, or they would not commit crimes. Many of those that have behavioral health issues have had bad childhoods, come from poor communities, have been sexually abused, etc. Trauma can cause damage, plain and simple... there is only so much the human mind can take or be exposed to.

Without labels, the conversations among health care professionals and therapists would become ridiculously unwieldy and confused. Lay people who use the labels misuse them and are generally clueless regarding the finer distinctions that can be made in the diagnostic criteria. The labels are merely shorthand, and it's a lot easier than reciting an entire chapter of the DSM.

By the way, isn't "mentally sick" something of a blanket label for criminals? I would strongly dislike being labeled "mentally sick" because I was arrested and incarcerated for practicing civil disobedience.

The only behaviors that arise soley from environmental factors are spinal reflexes.

And there is no such thing as a "chemical imbalance". The only people promoting that idea are the pharmaceutical companies.

Gnosital wrote

And there is no such thing as a "chemical imbalance". The only people promoting that idea are the pharmaceutical companies.

Not true. The brain and basic human emotion run on all sorts of chemicals so to speak. Hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, testosterone or other chemicals that involve the brain's neurotransmitters such as serotonin, and dopamine all must be in balance for normal healthy behavior.

For example, after pregnancy a woman has a hormonal let down and can go through severe depression or mood swings. Same can be said for men who had their testicles removed after testicular cancer or HIV patients with testosterone loss and muscle wasting resulting in behavioral issues. Those that tend to be morbidly obese tend to have very low levels of dopamine and therefore depression; providing medications that adjust these chemical levels result in weight loss as the patient doesn't eat on a continuous basis in order to boost these levels.

[Gnosital]

MrsMoe wrote

Not true. The brain and basic human emotion run on all sorts of chemicals so to speak. Hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, testosterone or other chemicals that involve the brain's neurotransmitters such as serotonin, and dopamine all must be in balance for normal healthy behavior.

For example, after pregnancy a woman has a hormonal let down and can go through severe depression or mood swings. Same can be said for men who had their testicles removed after testicular cancer or HIV patients with testosterone loss and muscle wasting resulting in behavioral issues. Those that tend to be morbidly obese tend to have very low levels of dopamine and therefore depression; providing medications that adjust these chemical levels result in weight loss as the patient doesn't eat on a continuous basis in order to boost these levels.

Then please explain to me what exactly constitutes this so-called "chemical BALANCE" in a physiological system?

And please also explain what is so "out of balance" during the natural progression of post-partum hormonal fluctuations and pre and post menopausal hormone fluctuations? And while you're at it, would you mind explaining how females experience a menstrual cycle at all, considering that the very nature of hormonal cyclicity DEPENDS on constant imbalances among progesterone, estradiol, leteinizing hormone, and FSH?

Also, I would be interested in hearing your considered and learned opinions on exactly what it is about antidepressant medications (which, by the way, are neither direct nor indirect dopamine agonists, but are instead specific inhibitors of membrane-embedded reuptake proteins for serotonin) that results in a "balance" of dopamine, when in fact these meds begin to affect serotonin transmission within 20 minutes of ingestion, but do not alleviate depressive symptoms for 3-4 weeks?

Gnosital wrote

And while you're at it, would you mind explaining how females experience a menstrual cycle at all, considering that the very nature of hormonal cyclicity DEPENDS on constant imbalances among progesterone, estradiol, leteinizing hormone, and FSH?

If the constant imbalances were balanced then that would be imbalanced, right? Of course what do I know, I don't have a menstrual cycle.

[calpurnpiso]

PanAtheist wrote

New Scientist Magazine has an article this week, with some info on the disadvantages of the word and classification "schizophrenia", and about a campaign to get rid of.

Essentially (if I get the gist) it's not a biological category, it is just a catch-all for a variety of conditions, which have, probably, several and diverse causes ....And it is unhelpful label for patients, and for those treating them, and society generally.


Down With Schizophrenia @ New Scientist Mag
(Full Access for subscribers only)





It's an interesting article, worth reading in full.

..Of course they have to get rid of this name. Religious nuts are everywhere and Christian thinking and activites had to be given a NEW NAME since they become synonimous with Schizophrenia. I would suggest, Christiapathy Retardiensis. it means educated believers in Imaginary friends are not going to ne classified as schizophrenics, and since Christian is getting be synonimous with this offending word....

[calpurnpiso]

nkb wrote

Pan,
Why don't you just kick Cal in the nuts and anally rape him with a Louisville Slugger while you're at it?

Hmm..the kicking is one thing, but receiving the Lord and Savior Penis-Christ, pacifier of Satanic Libido would be view as a blessing of the Lord..

[Gnosital]

Lurker wrote

If the constant imbalances were balanced then that would be imbalanced, right? Of course what do I know, I don't have a menstrual cycle.

Are you certain? I thought Kate called you a pussy!

There are two main things I don't like about this article:

1. I don't like the notion that a hodge-podge of disorders are shoved into a "catch-all" called schizophrenia. It's not as if doctors are diagnosing every mentally ill patient as schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis. There are 5-7 discrete types (depending on which handbook you use). The actual diagnosis of a patient takes months, or even years. When a patient's medical history is understood and other mental illnesses have been ruled out, a definitive diagnosis can be made to identify the type, severity, and treatment options.

Currently many medical professionals are using the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS), which involves interviews with patients and their friends and family. Very specific behaviors, positive and negative symptoms and durations are catalogued and scored to create an assessment. Additionally doctors assess the impact of the symptoms on patient's lives (e.g. independent living, work, interpersonal relationships). This is a painstakingly thorough process, not a blanket diagnosis used flippantly.

2. I don't like the implication that we should throw out schizophrenia as a diagnosis simply because there is stigma associated with it. If we do that, we might as well rename HIV, all STDs and all mental illnesses while we're at it. There is social stigma from a variety of disorders. The solution isn't in repackaging the mental illness with a new name, it's in educating the public that schizophrenics are not typically violent, and they can function superbly in society with the right kind of support.

Off topic, but near and dear to my heart:

Schizophrenia destroys lives. While sufferers are not typically violent, they are prone to hurting themselves. Medication is extremely effective in treating the disease, but schizophrenics are notoriously non-compliant with daily regimens. However, today not only do we have a variety of treatments but we also have a variety of delivery systems. Schizophrenia can be treated with a monthly injection which takes the daily responsibility off the patient. These pharmaceutical products are relatively new to the market, but we have seen an amazing result from the administration: patients are not only going into a remission of positive symptoms, but they are actually achieving RECOVERY (at least 2 years without a positive symptom). This is amazing.

Lurker wrote

If the constant imbalances were balanced then that would be imbalanced, right? Of course what do I know, I don't have a menstrual cycle.

Why not? You ride a sybian to work, don't you?

[Gnosital]

Reverend Blasphemy wrote

There are two main things I don't like about this article:

1. I don't like the notion that a hodge-podge of disorders are shoved into a "catch-all" called schizophrenia. It's not as if doctors are diagnosing every mentally ill patient as schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis. There are 5-7 discrete types (depending on which handbook you use). The actual diagnosis of a patient takes months, or even years. When a patient's medical history is understood and other mental illnesses have been ruled out, a definitive diagnosis can be made to identify the type, severity, and treatment options.

Currently many medical professionals are using the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS), which involves interviews with patients and their friends and family. Very specific behaviors, positive and negative symptoms and durations are catalogued and scored to create an assessment. Additionally doctors assess the impact of the symptoms on patient's lives (e.g. independent living, work, interpersonal relationships). This is a painstakingly thorough process, not a blanket diagnosis used flippantly.

2. I don't like the implication that we should throw out schizophrenia as a diagnosis simply because there is stigma associated with it. If we do that, we might as well rename HIV, all STDs and all mental illnesses while we're at it. There is social stigma from a variety of disorders. The solution isn't in repackaging the mental illness with a new name, it's in educating the public that schizophrenics are not typically violent, and they can function superbly in society with the right kind of support.

Off topic, but near and dear to my heart:

Schizophrenia destroys lives. While sufferers are not typically violent, they are prone to hurting themselves. Medication is extremely effective in treating the disease, but schizophrenics are notoriously non-compliant with daily regimens. However, today not only do we have a variety of treatments but we also have a variety of delivery systems. Schizophrenia can be treated with a monthly injection which takes the daily responsibility off the patient. These pharmaceutical products are relatively new to the market, but we have seen an amazing result from the administration: patients are not only going into a remission of positive symptoms, but they are actually achieving RECOVERY (at least 2 years without a positive symptom). This is amazing.

Well said, Reverend dear!

How YOU doin?

Gnosy! I'm fantastic. How the hell have you been?

I haven't been able to write much or call ya. I'm doing a lot of traveling for work right now.