chipdouglas
Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 19
Haidut : Sadly, what you wrote in painfully accurate.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Actually, the same is true of regular allopathic medicine. If you get a diagnosis and want a second, third, etc opinion from other doctors there will be on average at least as many diagnoses as doctors you see. There was an article about this in the NYT about 15 years ago when I was just leaving college. There were even class action lawsuits for malpractice due to this craziness so as a result now many states require you to present all prior diagnoses you have received to any new doctor you see or you can be liable for fraud. Not all states have such laws but I think at least half do. It's just mind boggling. Why would I go to a second doctor for another opinion and present him/her with the previously furnished one(s)??! If I am going to a new doctor, clearly I want a new, unbiased opinion, not an analysis of the already given diagnosis. There is a an inherent conflict of interest that the profession will never publicly admit, since doctors tend to not compromise each other and stand to gain from always recommending treatment.
I've never heard of that law. If it is so, in a state, wouldn't the forms you fill out at the doctor's office say that you must be complete and truthful under penalty of law?Actually, the same is true of regular allopathic medicine. If you get a diagnosis and want a second, third, etc opinion from other doctors there will be on average at least as many diagnoses as doctors you see. There was an article about this in the NYT about 15 years ago when I was just leaving college. There were even class action lawsuits for malpractice due to this craziness so as a result now many states require you to present all prior diagnoses you have received to any new doctor you see or you can be liable for fraud. Not all states have such laws but I think at least half do. It's just mind boggling. Why would I go to a second doctor for another opinion and present him/her with the previously furnished one(s)??! If I am going to a new doctor, clearly I want a new, unbiased opinion, not an analysis of the already given diagnosis. There is a an inherent conflict of interest that the profession will never publicly admit, since doctors tend to not compromise each other and stand to gain from always recommending treatment.
The article is strictly about the medical profession of psychiatrist, not (talk) therapist, even though some psychiatrist do that too. I guess the main difference is that a psychiatrist is an actual doctor (MD), can officially diagnose diseases defined in the DSM, and prescribe medication (or even hospitalization) for them. The typical therapist is a psychology graduate degree holder (MS or PhD) and they do not diagnose or prescribe drugs.
I've never heard of that law. If it is so, in a state, wouldn't the forms you fill out at the doctor's office say that you must be complete and truthful under penalty of law?
This happened here with the introduction of a national medical database. This resulted in it being impossible to receive unbiased second opinions since the doctor can look at your history and go along with it. Most people think the change was positive because now you can have your prescription in electronic form and don't have to carry a paper to the pharmacy. ***t is getting bad.
I hate how society blame the individual for their mental illness when its the society which made them that way, degenerate culture we exist in.
How can we possibly not be effected by the inhumane actions of politicians, lobbyists and wankers from passive aggressive BS, gaslighting, manipulation in the work place and family to road rage..impossible to escape. humanly human as we are wanting to be part of the group even if its sick and twisted.
I think it's because stress raises metabolism and makes some people feel more alive. Removing stress would make them go into a serotonin dominant hypothyroid state.
What is a good alternative then to psychiatry? I've never been to one as I've never gotten to a point of breakdown nor where people around me would start intervention. But I went for counseling, and it was just helpful mainly because I'll be given the chance to talk on and on. That was all we did.
I thought about that experience and realized that having someone listen and not butt in before a sentence is even completed, that is golden. It's hard to find that in family and with friends. It has to be someone who is detached from you, and someone who knows listening is key. Funny but it's hard to find people who have that skill. People find it hard to tune out noise, and keep adding to the noise. No wonder when you talk to a friend about your problem, you end up listening to theirs.
Wrong diagnosis lead to wrong medication usually, and it's not likely it will be corrected. When people become mentally unstable and they become legion, it shows up as a societal malfunction.Back to the OP's point. Yes those psychiatric diagnoses are somewhat artificial, and they certainly overlap (try sorting out the DSM!). They can be useful to the doctor to narrow down the choices of potentially helpful meds. But people end up with multiple diagnoses as it is discovered which meds are/are not helpful or are outright harmful. So really, what good does it do to be diagnosed at various times bipolar w/psychotic features, schizophrenic (disorganized type), or finally schizo-affective (a bit of both)?
I should clarify that I am not claiming that genetics cause mental illness directly - but rather more likely they create a metabolic "shift" that causes balance to go off the rails for some people.