... to think that psychiatry is a bit of a con ...?

[Rommell]

... hidebound as it is by cultural and societal norms. Yet it posits that the criteria it creates are truths as to who is 'well' and who is not. How can a person's mind, their psyche, their being be 'ill' anyway? Plus if it really were possible for a drug to produce 'correct' thinking, then the person who created it would be ruler of the world.

mitchy. I meant more that we can't directly observe what goes on in the brain, but, theoretically, that with the technology and without constraints on ethics, for instance, we could explain exactly the journey in someone's brain from zygote to having depression at 35. We are a long way from having the tech or capacity to do so and (hopefully) ethics wouldn't allow for something that intrusive so we'll never be able to, so we have to work with what we have and build theories on that.

Our brains exist within the societies we exist in and that cannot be discounted, the environment is an important variable.

DinkytheShrink no idea why that is directed at me, I know they are different I said they have no medical training. It is obvious psychiatrists do as they can diagnose or prescribe.

So when someone sets foot in my clinic for the first time, I will insist on bloods, a physical, usually a Ct brain and EEG as well if indicated.

Those tests would not have showed up my physical conditions.

So when someone sets foot in my clinic for the first time, I will insist on bloods, a physical, usually a Ct brain and EEG as well if indicated.

is this why some trusts can't afford doctors these days?

Yabu. As well as potentially damaging to those struggling with issues, perhaps suffering in silence.

I'd suggest you Google TED & have a look through the mental health talks.
www.ted.com/talks/thomas_insel_toward_a_new_understanding_of_mental_illness. Such as this one.

Not to say all psychiatrists are miracle workers, I know one personally who gives advice, talks the talks, dismisses drugs over CBT yet is a bit of a Cunt who makes their partner miserable, and can't deal with the massive health issue between them.

No CT or EEG in my NHS trust!!

Sorry, had to go chase my washing down the garden.

giddy apologies it was aimed at you as you seemed to be conflating the two professions, eg in your post of 13-12 or 13-14. I'm glad you found a treatment that has worked- if you are able to say, what / how was the diagnosis made? You can pm me if you want to educate me but not say on the thread. I would really value it if you can highlight something I may see but miss due to it be rare / uncommon (if I'm remembering right?) or not properly taught during my training. TIA!

mitchy too right . Cheaper than litigation for negligence though? Not that a lot of my client group are ever pointed in that direction even when they should be, but families are never happy if you end up terminally misdiagnosing and mistreating their loved one... This is not why I do it, I am a bit anal and want to get everything right at the outset, as pp's have pointed out the treatment journey can take a long time to get things as right as we can with our blunt instruments for people who are all individuals with different genetic make-ups, life experiences and sensitivities to medication. At least if I can make sure I am treating a psychiatric illness (such as depression with an antidepressant) and not missing a physical cause (eg b12 deficiency, which needs treating possibly with an antidepressant til the symptoms are better).

mentalpsychiatrist argh, how frustrating. I have been lucky to date, fucks knows what trust I'll end up working permanently in.

I already did pm you, very misunderstood conditions, I love it when people want to find out more, as that means there won't be more Dr's out there feeling rubbish about the damage they have done and patients out there being mistreated.

No worries about the misunderstanding I think I posted quite a bit so you may not have seen my earlier post.

YABU. Completely unreasonable. Even the DSM addresses the fact that wellness is subjective, if something is not distressing for someone or causes harm to themselves or people around them,in GENERAL, it's not a psychological problem. I'd suggest you have a look at some health psychology stuff, I think it will address the areas you're picking issue with quite well for you.

I could write more, and really try explain it, but like other posters have said, I think it would be a waste of my time.

how times have changed

(or just swap chlorpromazine for quetiapine?)

Psychiatric services tend to be so severely stretched that someone already has to be coming to harm in one way or another before they even get a foot in, OP. They have to be obviously not "well". Even then, help is often not forthcoming.

Psychiatry also suffers from being a new branch of medicine as far as any evidence base is concerned, so treatments are often rather crude. The professionals often don't get it right, as a result because they simply don't know enough about how the brain works, yet.

I really object to a thread like this being started and allowed to stand without the OP being able to back up with some peer reviewed published research...but even still most people, in particular clients or potential clients of MH services are not in a position to absorb or discuss evidence based research. I think it is reckless and scaremongering.

You could say that say any illness is defined by societal norms.

As for drugs 'correcting' thinking, not exactly - it re-aligns hormones within the CNS that can impact upon physical and pyscholgical levels. They are increasingly finding more and more markers that correlate behaviours. Some areas of science such as neuropyschology bridge the gap between the physical and psychological and new discoveries about how the mind and body are being made all the time.

Really? We shouldn't post an opinion unless we can back it up with peer reviewed research now? That'll make the site less busy. I like to see proper research posted to back up an argument but I think that's a bit unreasonable.

Here's some peer reviewed research. It shows that in mild to moderate depression, SSRI drugs perform no better than placebo. I would never be so insensitive as to post that on the MH board but I don't think these things should be a no-go discussion topic anywhere on the site.

I don't really understand your last paragraph, please could you post a source for the 're-aligns hormones within the CNS' stuff?

Well, I was Acutely Psychotic in 2012 - first I took Risperidone as prescribed by the Psychiatrist and it didn't work, but now I take Aripiprazole (another Anti-Psychotic) and it is the only thing keeping me sane and well. I'm like 'myself' again but better. I feel great and I won't stop taking the meds.

I also take Venlafaxine 300mg a day for Depression. I can honestly say it has saved my life. So the Psychiatrists have basically saved my life.

Hmm, some interesting points here which I will respond to when I have the time. For those of you complaining at me starting the thread and then leaving it, I was fully prepared to have this discussion last night, but mumsnet pulled the thread (presumably after a complaint from one of the first posters on here who then followed me to another thread, said that I was 'ill' and asked when I last saw my psychiatrist).

This has made me chuckle though:

Wow, why was you previous thread pulled?

When you replied to my point, Rommell, you said that about not denying mental pain etc etc. But you missed the thrust of what I was saying, I feel. Which is that without modern psychaitry, many people would be DEAD or miserable, when medication has actually helped them live normal lives.

There's a big difference between suggesting that some people may have inaccurate and unnecessary diagnoses and saying 'psychiatry is a bit of a con'.

I've seen both sides. 16 yrs working in acute mental health nursing and also suffering from depression and anxiety that would have undoubtedly led to my own suicide without antidepressant treatment (and believe me; in my not wanting to be ill and thinking that with all my mental health experience, qualifications and psychological and analytical skills I could 'sort myself out', I tried EVERYTHING else).

I have extensively researched medical literature from both traditional sources and the 'anti-psychiatry' movement. Neither perspective is without it's own agenda. My BSc honours dissertation included extensive research and analysis of mental illness in third world countries and 'mental illness' is just as prevalent in countries that have no concept of 'Psychiatry', we just differ in our views and treatment of such conditions.

You are grossly inaccurate to suggest all mental illness is 'outside of societal norms'. In fact, the diagnosis of psychosis actually specifies that beliefs HAVE TO BE outside of usual social, cultural and religious beliefs.

Not everyone in mental distress has a defined 'mental illness' not everyone from these groups need medication or would benefit from a traditional Psychiatric/Psychological treatment but to suggest it's 'all a con' just makes you look silly and ill-informed.

I've lost count of the people I've encountered in my career that have been well and stable on medication for many years and relapsed into acute illness after having read some nonsense like you're now repeating. Many 'religious' groups including scientology spout it.

It's the same shit that suggests ADHD or ASD are attributed to bad parenting. There are many, many MRI studies that demonstrate the science behind neurobiological disorders which include mental illnesses including schizophrenia and depression. Just because we can't offer a blood test to confirm it for 'unbelievers' doesn't mean it's not real. You could have a migraine today, there's no 'test' to confirm that but it doesn't mean you're talking bollocks.

but for all the people helped to lead 'normal lives' through good evidence-based psychiatry (I might be one of them, bipolar diagnosis, taking lithium) there are growing numbers of people who are unhappy and realising or suspecting they meet the diagnostic threshold for depression visit their GP who has neither the time nor the will to find out about all the stuff that's wrong in the patient's life (or to address any of the problems anyway) and prescribes anti-depressants - only for the patient to discover the side effects are awful and the withdrawal is even worse than the original level of misery they took to the GP in the first place

in this sense people are conned, I think

GiddyUpCowboy - sorry, I was being unclear. I meant that this thread was pulled shortly after I posted it last night. It was only reinstated this morning.

BOFster, whether medication helps or not is not categorically proven, I think. The 'success' rate for treatment for people diagnosed with schizophrenia, for instance, is 25%, which is pretty damn low. And even those 25% will have to deal with side-effects. PlentyofPubeGardens posted upthread that SSRIs had no greater a success rate than a placebo for mild to moderate depression. Do the drugs work? The heavy-duty ones certainly sedate, but how on earth can a pill work against what is called 'psychosis'?

neverthebride, I'm not setting myself up as an expert. I probably am silly and ill-informed - I'm sort of trying to find my way through this. But this:

^In fact, the diagnosis of psychosis actually specifies that beliefs HAVE TO BE outside of usual social, cultural and religious beliefs. ^

is exactly what I am talking about. That is what makes me feel uneasy. Social, cultural and religious beliefs change over time. Whether a leg is broken or not is the same in 1066 as it is now. So how can an illness be an illness now but it wouldn't have been, say, 400 years ago? Is it, in fact, an 'illness' or do we need think in different terms?

that is where I think I am with you OP - the expansion of what we understand to be mental illness to encompass so much of everyday life and common unhappiness, the pill for every ill thing

on the other hand of course without all the new diagnoses and the money the whole industry generates for research and studies into psychological as well as pharmacological treatments how well would our body of knowledge grow?

Oh and Lilke, I am actually quite surprised that you thought I was saying things that are offensive and hurtful to those with an mh diagnosis. I may be misremembering, but I don't think I have actually said anything derogatory about mh service users, so I don't see how what I am exploring with this thread is 'offensive and hurtful' to them, their families or others who know them and I'm sorry if you have taken what I have said that way but it certainly was not intended.

Also, it has just occurred to me that the most pompous and bombastic post, which was mostly all about how brilliant s/he is, has come from a psychiatrist who thinks the only problem with psychiatry is that there isn't enough funding to lock even more people up!