From: PhilSin <PhilSin-AT-aol.com> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:01:49 EST Subject: Re: madness In a message dated 98-03-17 07:52:27 EST, you write: > Maybe so, but it shouldn't be forgotten that the emergence > of biological psychiatry comes in the wake of the gradual > waning of the psychodynamic paradigm, no bad thing in my > opinion, to a kind of neo-Kraepelinism;i.e. a return to > Kraepelin (creator of the prototype for schizophrenia), > where all concerns about cause are screened out only to > resurface in "Western" psychiatric classification systems > through the back door as individualised biomedical What's interesting is that the power structure behind this neo-Kr. system of classification (DSM) continue to deny that it is an etiologically based system of classification. Just because it is used to justify the rampant application of the biological model isn't their issue. This is actually what they say. I remember a day, not too long ago when we actually cared about etiology and questioned both social and psychological aspects of the clients symptoms as well. It was called the bio-psycho-social model. Don't hear much about this any more. Just check out the Prozac ads in national magazines. There they instruct the consumer that precipitant, personality and situation don't matter. As they say, "even happy events can bring on a depression". The control of the craft of psychiatry has passed out of the hands of concerned individuals into a powerr structure that just keeps erecting more and more barriers to genuine inquiry. What if DSM is basically wrong? What if a categorical diagnostic system is simply a mistaken approach? What could be done about it now?? Yours, Phil S.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005