The medical model of mental illness is flawed

I will start by addressing my forfeiture from last round. I ran out of time, and had full intentions to respond to the arguments listed in round two. I will quickly address the issues found within round two, and then move to round three objections. Round 2 Objections: The entire basis of my opponents argument is formulated in an illogical manner. The opening statements of scope in the argument are fundamentally changed in the conclusion. In the opening remarks, my opponent claimed that his main objections to the treatment of mental illness with the current model revolves around the lack of empirical biological data, and that treating it with pharmaceutical drugs is very dangerous in the absence of biological proof. The summary on the other hand, presents an argument for the models flaws given a few conditions. First, because psychological disorders cannot be diagnosed in a unitary fashion, and second, psychological disorders cannot be cured in the current model; thusly the entire model is flawed. The obvious lack of consistency in my opponents argument is huge issue undoubtably, but the conclusion that is drawn in the summary is of even more concern. The argument given in the conclusion is incoherent when observed more closely. If the inadequacies of the current medical models of treatment is dependent on the two conditions provided, the list of other diseases that are treated in the same manner as mental illness include: cancer, the common cold, asthma, and diabetes. Although some are diagnosed using biological tests, they all share the commonality of incurableness. If the validity of diseases being treated depends on the ability to cure them, modern medicine would have come to an abrupt end long ago. The aim of modern medicine, is to my knowledge, not contingent on the ability to cure every disease. Furthermore, in claiming that there is no biological evidence to prove mental disorders, therefore they don't exist, is a fallacy in itself. Just because we cannot measure it, does not imply that it does not exist. It may in fact be human error in the measuring of mental disorders biological foundation that has lead us astray. In conclusion, the inconsistencies in my opponents arguments in the introduction and conclusion, are in themselves cause to doubt the logical formation and presentation of information. Round 3 Objections: The argument about the lack of observing genetic predispositions when diagnosing mental disorders is simply incorrect. Even if my opponent were able to find evidence somewhere of this claim, using it would add no value to the argument. The very broad and dangerous generalizations about "all" and "typical" psychiatrists can never be viewed as logical assertions. The incoherence continues in the next section about behaviors and diseases. In what way is the diagnosis of psychological disorders used a weapon? I agree that the majority of the disorders listed in the DSM typically lead to undesirable social behaviors, but the diseases themselves certainly cannot be objectionable to society as a whole, after all, people who suffer from them surely would not choose to. The last section of the behavior argument is of particular concern for me. We don't deprive people of liberty based on real illnesses? I doubt that my opponent missed out on the coverage of the "Ebola" epidemic. The United States of America DOES in fact deprive citizens of liberties, even when "real illnesses" are present. I will direct any question of this matter to the CDC's website concerning quarantine laws (http://www.cdc.gov...). Furthermore, a judge has ruled on the issues my opponent is claiming they would never. The most recent case being that of an individuals "right to die." In many states this is illegal, and arguing that this is not a liberty is in direct opposition of the definition of liberty, "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views". In summary, it is actually quite ironic and humorous that my opponent has proclaimed his rational as "valid and sound." The things I have listed are just a few of the criticisms that I find in the validity and soundness of my opponents rationale. I am aware that I provide no counter examples, but I believe in Cartesian common sense, and anyone who observes both my opponents arguments, and my objections, will ultimately see the obscurity in the claims made; in fact they may find many more that Iz have omitted. These kinds of arguments are the reason that mental disorders are stigmatized in todays society. I realize that I too have argue from logical fallacious positions, but find it necessary to assert my argument refuting the entire argument made by my opponent. Finally I will draw attention to an issue that has been completely ignored by my opponent. The entire medical model for treating ANY disease is flawed beyond doubt. The list of symptoms when taking any pharmaceutical drug is long, and in many cases, the symptoms are worse then the aim of their treatment. The entire industry of Pharmaceutical Drugs is littered with corruption and deceit. Arguing that the use of these drugs for treating mental disorders is undoubtably true, but it ignores the actual issues of treating medical conditions as a whole. At the end of the day, narrowing the scope of criticism to only incorporate mental disorders omits the fundamental flaws within our societies treatment of medical conditions.