From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Peter Breggin, _Toxic Psychiatry_ (Q)
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:58:47 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


Ah, Mr. Dyer seems finally to have been prodded into an attempt at
dealing with substantive issues.

In article <1992Dec17.032545.22504@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
|> In article <BzD6GI.DvH@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> >Yes, and you have put your finger precisely on the fundamental issue.
|> >It *doesn't matter* in such a case precisely what the disease is.
|> >There *is* a disease, and what is *important* is identifying the
|> >*cause* since it is *this* that determines treatment.
|> 
|> I would say that Toxic Shock Syndrome and a superficial staph infection
|> would be treated somewhat differently.  The fact that the same antibiotic

Why?  Because they have different *causes* -- in fact are different *disesaes*.

|> >Again, what is the *analog* for schizophrenia?  I still have no
|> >answer to this.
|> 
|> So?  Who cares?

Anyone who wishes to maintain the disease model for schizophrenia
should care.

|> 
|> >The success of the disease model depends upon this.
|> >And upon the disease model rests much of contemporary psychiatry.
|> 
|> You have a pretty peculiar idea of what constitutes a "disease".
|> Contemporary psychiatry will sleep soundly.

Give me a clear explication of "disease" then.  I have, of course,
been focusing on the germ theory.  This is in general a bit too
narrow.  So what do *you* suggest?  What *are* the appropriate
criteria for classifying something as a disease?

|> 
|> Nonsense.  You don't even have the faintest idea of what a "disease" is,
|> let alone a "disease model".  How do you expect to argue against it?

Provide one then.

|> >We are free to do
|> >this, but it results in changing what "disease" means and we must
|> >beware of being misled by a model that doesn't fit very well.
|> 
|> No it doesn't.  This is all consonant with its use elsewhere.
|> 
|> >There are several examples in the history of science where it is
|> >plain that clinging to such an incorrect model misdirected research
|> >and resulted in delaying advances.
|> 
|> Dyer's Law: The pomposity of a USENET posting is inversely proportional
|> to the knowledge and experience of its author.  Anyone care to try for
|> a corollary?

Now you're regressing to your previous behavior.  And you were doing
so well!

|> >It is clear that you consider schizophrenia to be a disease.  I
|> >wonder how you feel about such things as depression and attention
|> >deficit disorder.  Are these diseases as well?
|> 
|> Here we go again.  Anyone who has either experienced or witnessed major
|> depression or bipolar affective disorder wouldn't be asking such a
|> question.  Of course they're diseases.  There are objective criteria
|> which must be satisfied for a diagnosis.

There were objective criteria (still are in some places) for possession
by evil spirits or for being a witch.  You have to do better than this.

|> >By the way, I don't mind your considering me ignorant.
|> 
|> "...Patient seems more in contact with reality in this last paragraph
|> than in previous days..."

Everyone gets viewed as a patient?  Or just the people who don't agree
with you?




-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm