I have heard both arguments in my Psych 12 class, and I favor the side that states "Mental Illness is not a disease"
Excerpt from USA Today Magazine July 2000:
Of course, a mental illness is not a disease in the pathologocial sense.
A disease is a bodily abnormality, a lesion of cells, tissues, or orgnas. The term in relation to mental illness is used purely in a metaphorical sense.
The brain is a material object, but the mind is not. The mind is an idea, and therefore cannot be diseased.
If we believe a mental illness is a disease it is on par with bodily diseases such as Cancer.
A mental illness is a pattern of personal conduct unwanted by self or others. Basically, it is abnormal behabior in a person rather than in their body.
A medical disase is discovered and then given a name, such as AIDS.
A mental disease is invented and then given a name, such as ADD.
It is not possible to die of a mental illness or to find evidence of it in organs, tissues, cells, or body fluid during an autopsy. Anthrax is a disease that is biological, cand and does, kill it's host. ADD on the other hand is socially constructed and connot kill.
No one sees a "crush" as a disease, and yes it it the same as a mental illness.
Psychiatrists have succeeded in persuading media, courts, and the scientific community, that mental disorders are diseases. But there is no empirical evidence to support this, in fact, there CAN'T be any.
Let's use this example:
John Smith has astrocytoma, it is discovered and empirically verified. Radiologists identify it and observe the lesion. Pathologists confirm by examining tissues.
John Smith is diagnosed with Schizophrenia. The psychiatrists identifies his behavior as schizo, other psychiatrists confirm it's prescence by committing him to a mental hospital where he gets his right to refuse treatment. He exercises this right. Then a judge tells him he is mentally incompetent to refuse treatment.
Psychiatrists have power over people denominated as "atients," their statems act as covert prescriptions. Psychiatrists would describe a man who says "God is telling him to kill his wife" as schizophrenic. This diagnosis is a prescription to hospitalize the patient against their will, or after he has killed his wife, to acquit him as not guilt by reason of insanity and hospitalize him against his will.
A patient who has a bodily illness may or may not be hospitalized based on his own decisions. Mental illness allows a judge to incarcerate a sex criminal who has completed his prison sentence.
Psychiatry is a vialation of legal-political principle. One that is odious because most persons trated against their will by psychiatrists are defined as legally competent-they can vote, marry, divorce, etc.
In a free society the physician's "right" to treat is not based on diagnosis but on the patient's willingness to be treated.
A mental patient is entitled to liberty unless they ahve committed a crime. Otherwise they should not be forcibly treated.
In a free society a psychiatrist should not be allowed to profit from his diagnosis and treatment of "atients"
That was a bit long, but it is a correct summary of the idea.
Is it right for psychiatrists to profit from their jobs? Considering they may forcibly treat patients who have not committed crimes, allowing them to preserve a job that they may not otherwise have?
Have psychiatrists tricked society into believe that mental illness is a horrible disease?
I know you are agreeing with me but, that is not true.
Disease: A pathological condition of a body part, an organ, or a system resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
A symptom is what a patient says is wrong with him. A sign is what the professional observes.
Mental patients don't have "symptoms" if they don't believe they have anything wrong with them. They only have signs, and therefore no disease
Certain mental illnesses are diseases. Schizophrenia and dementia can and do cause literal mental breakdowns in the human brain. Do they cause observable damage? Yes. Therefore they are, as defined, a disease.
ADD and OCD on the other hand, and usually caused my minute changes in the brain. They don't just 'appear.' Something that drastic can be caused by everything from primary disorders such as dementia, to genetic defects, and even substance abuse.
most mental illnesses are gene-linked, and therefore defined as a "disorder" or "gene disorder" (because it is caused by an incorrect order in the genes) instead of a "disease" (usually caused by 'invading agents'.
also i figure we might as well get this thang answerin some questions
Is it right for psychiatrists to profit from their jobs?
It is my personal belief that if it is a medically diagnosed problem which is said to require a psychiatrist, then there should not be a direct payoff (rather like a non-profit organization, the psychiatrists is still going to get payed). if it is not medically diagnosed (ie: midlife crisis, death in family) then it is the person's choice how much they would like to pay for a psychiatrist.
Considering they may forcibly treat patients who have not committed crimes, allowing them to preserve a job that they may not otherwise have?
It is illegal to forcibly treat patients with Schizophrenia who have not committed crimes. if they refuse treatment, they are not given treatment. that is the law in the USA.
Have psychiatrists tricked society into believe that mental illness is a horrible disease?
it depends on the psychiatrist. in this thread, you've thrown them all into one boiler pot as evil money-hungry bastards. Some psychiatrists believe all skitzo's should be treated, others believe it is best left up to the person or a family member who takes care of them.
ADD and OCD on the other hand, and usually caused my minute changes in the brain. They don't just 'appear.' Something that drastic can be caused by everything from primary disorders such as dementia, to genetic defects, and even substance abuse.
We do not attribute motives to a person having leukemia, do not say a person has reasons for having glaucoma, and would be nuts if we said diabetes caused someone to shoot the president.
Yet we can say tramautic events cause Post Tramautic Stress Disorder, and PTSD caused him to shoot the president.
In one movement mental illness removes motivation from action, attatches it to illness and destroys the possibility of seperating disease from non-disease.
We canot accept mental illness as a disease for this reason.
it depends on the psychiatrist. in this thread, you've thrown them all into one boiler pot as evil money-hungry *******s.
Yup
It is illegal to forcibly treat patients with Schizophrenia who have not committed crimes.
I was under the impression, if a person was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They can be deemed unfit to make decisions for themselves, and then someone else (family members) may make decisions for them when it comes to treatment.
In "Lectures on Clinical Psychiatry" Emil Kraeplin (founder of modern psychiatry) said "Psychiatry, as it's name implies, is that of the treatment of mental disease. It is true that, in the scrtictest terms, we cannot speak of the mind as becoming diseased.
As long as there is no physio-chemical observations shown to causally relate to depression and schizophrenia, there is no disease.
Some would say they are diseases because drugs keep them "under control"
If someone with diabetes stops using their insulin the disease flares up and they die
Someone with depression does not die by no longer taking medication, the disease flares up, but they kill themselves. This act is attributed to their so called mental illness.
"If we restrict treatment to a coluntary relationship between a medical practitioner and a client then a coerced medical practititoner and a competent client, then a coerced medical intervention imposed by people not legally incompetent is assault and battery, not treatment."
