Posted by Fi on November 5, 2004, at 18:31:29
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:48:28
Apologies- I havent read all the posts. So sorry if repititions.
I agree that there is stigma about mental illness. For example, there have been programmes describing how Van Gogh and King George III had physical illnesses as if this was wonderful news and made their symptoms 'respectable'.
I dont think that this stigma means that we should see neurologists instead. There is certainly the issue that brain biology is changed in at least some people with psycholgical problems, but its unclear if these changes are the cause of the symptoms, or a result of them. Mind and body are of course closely linked.
It doesnt need to be medication or therapy- ideally its both (if its too much of a problem for therapy on its own to work). Sure, it would be good if we completely understood how the medication works. There is some understanding of the neurotransmitters and such, but actually drugs are often used when they arent completely understood (eg anaesthetics). On a pragmatic level.
In the UK, a range of mental health professional suggest or use CBT, usually only parts of it (or refer people to books). There are very few psychologists at all, let alone ones trained in CBT.
What a psychiatrist could offer (in a perfect world) would be some level of psychological therapies, or referral to relevant professionals, plus good knowledge of relevant drugs. As well as the linked skills in assessment (including risk assessment) and diagnosis.
Neurologists would only have part of that.
Anyway, what we need is less stigma and more treatment resources. These could be linked- its always easier to lobby for more neonatal cots than a unit for mental health rehabilitation.And government knows that, tho doesnt always go completely for public priorities (forunately!)
Fi
poster:Fi
thread:411422
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041105/msgs/412332.html