Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, do you believe that psychotherapy has any merit?
Nemesio indeed made a mess of my words.
Wrong diagnosis I must say. Next thing he will be advising me to look for a good therapist and take some effective medicin ....... oh well ..... 😀
EDIT: I love the following Nemesio wrote:
"Doctors do NOT generally diagnose unknown problems as 'mental;'
this is not some 'well-known fact.' And, of ...[text shortened]... in some cases correct."
" often ..... the diagnosis is in some cases correct"
ROTFLMSO
Originally posted by Nemesio1. I think the point ivanhoe is making is that doctors are quick to go for a psychological diagnosis when they cannot find a physiological one. You deny that they do so at all. Therefore, doctors who do not understand what is going on either offer a diagnosis that is neither physiological nor psychological, or offer none when they do not understand what is happening.
There are two separate statements:
1) I dispute the absurd claim that doctors turn to a 'between-the-ears' diagnosis when
they do not understand what is going on (where's your proof for this claim?);
2) And when they do decide to offer a 'between-the-ears' diagnosis (however frequently
or infrequently that may be), they are often correct.
I'll accept your apology for misunderstanding my already clear sentence in advance.
Nemesio
So far so good. We have a debate here.
2. Whether such psychological diagnosis is correct or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the physician actually knew (to the best of his ability) that the cause was psychological at the time of making his diagnosis. Or did he just make such an assessment because it was probably right?
When a doctor presents a diagnosis to a patient, he is not presenting a probable cause - he is presenting his best positive diagnosis of the situation; i.e. he says that X is the cause because he has evidence to suggest X, not just a process of elimination where he has excluded all (not X).
Is this a joke? Are you guys conspiring to screw with my head here?
Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. I think the point ivanhoe is making is that doctors are quick to go for a psychological diagnosis when they cannot find a physiological one. You deny that they do so at all. Therefore, doctors who do not understand what is going on either offer a diagnosis that is neither physiological nor psychological, or offer none when they do not understand what is happening.
First of all, I do NOT deny that they do so at all. Consider point #2 of the post of mine
that you quoted:
2) And when they do decide to offer a 'between-the-ears' diagnosis (however frequently
or infrequently that may be), they are often correct.
I deny that, when a doctor is faced with a situation for which s/he can offer no physiological
diagnosis, s/he often (much less 99% of the time) turns to a 'between-the-ears' explanation.
Very often, doctors just say, 'I don't know...let's try test X to see if we can narrow down the
problem in some fashion.' And, indeed, in those cases when tests reveal nothing conclusive,
they often simply state that: 'We don't know what is wrong,' and not attribute the patient's
problems to some sort of mental condition.
So, you've totally misread me, whereas I summarized Ivanhoe's utterly bogus claim accurately.
2. Whether such psychological diagnosis is correct or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the physician actually knew (to the best of his ability) that the cause was psychological at the time of making his diagnosis. Or did he just make such an assessment because it was probably right?
I disagree that a correction psychological diagnosis is irrelevant. The dersive tone in Ivanhoe's
post (the part where a mental diagnosis is commensurate with 'I Don't Have A Clue About What's
Going On'😉, is his commentary on a doctor's choice to select a mental diagnosis over a physical
one. However, if the mental diagnosis IS correct, it is demonstrative of the doctor's
having a clue about what is going on (!!!). So it is totally relevant.
Read what he wrote and tell me its defensible, even if we consider that '99%' is hyperbolic (as
I said in my first post). It's not. It's utter crap to suggest that most or even half of psychological
diagnoses for mysterious physiological problems are a product of 'not having a clue.' If he, or you,
want to stand by it, then I suggest you cough up some studies about 'clueness' in psychological
diagnoses.
Is it unfortunate that Eagles's mom's doctor made the wrong diagnosis? Yes. Is it (even remotely)
possible that a test for pancreatic cancer might have helped her with her struggle? Sure. But we
are making such judgments in hindsight and without ANY medical data. Ivanhoe's reactionary
statement making gross and unfounded sweeping generalizations about the medical profession are,
to say the least, totally inappropriate and, I find, slanderous. I have a great deal of respect for
those who work in the medical profession, that most strive to make accurate, considered, critical
and life-saving decisions, often under tremendous pressure. The increasing litigation against those
who, by virtue of being human, make mistakes in diagnoses are finding it harder and harder to
stay in practice because of escalating insurance costs. In the face of these facts, I find
Ivanhoe's callous statements are beyond the pale.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI understood that you were not arguing with me when I made that particular post.
I'm not arguing with you -- no one here is able to do so because we do not know the
intimate details of her life, nor do we know the circumstances under which the doctor
came to his/her conclusion.
My deepest sympathies for your loss.
Nemesio
And thank you, along with Ivanhoe, for your sympathies.