This is the debate surrounding anti-psychiatry re CFS and related conditions that I want to be fluent in for my appointment next month with the neurologist...The Model of the Myth? - Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams - 17th March 2006: "In �The myth of the biopsychosocial model�, N McLaren exposes once and for all the myth upon which the so-called �biopsychosocial� model of illness so favoured by Wessely School psychiatrists depends (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, March 2006:40:277)."
Notable quotes:
"“What we see is that, rather than trying to improve their skills in the area of supposed expertise, some (psychiatrists) are increasingly encroaching upon and appropriating physical illnesses, among them CFS/ME, in which they have no expertise.
“Some psychiatrists act as if the large body of evidence of the physical abnormalities in CFS/ME did not exist and pass the illness off as some kind of belief disorder.
“Psychiatry is replete with examples of the abandonment of humanity, ethics and common sense.
“Why should psychiatrists’ self-generated aura of infallibility in judging the human condition be accepted? Where is the evidence to back up this claim?
“While you have such an excellent opportunity, I’d like you to ask the psychiatrists how they propose to treat ME/CFS phenomena such as low blood volume, cardiac insufficiency, lack of perfusion to areas of the brain, various immune and neurological abnormalities, channelopathy, Low Molecular Weight RNaseL, many deficiencies eg. of potassium, infections with mycoplasma and viruses, to name a few. As you would know, there is well-researched evidence for all of these and more. How do psychiatrists address these serious problems? How do they manage to ignore the evidence for them and to prescribe treatments which are contraindicated? Is this ethical?
No comments:
Post a Comment