On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:55 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
> actually, i'd been thinking about ppl diagnosed with ptsd. an alarming
> number of radical feminsits seem to suffer from it.
So you're thinking that radicalism is being pathologized? I'm just making sure I'm understanding. Or are you wondering why it would be that many radical feminists do in fact suffer from it? Not that these couldn't both be true. Also of course one would want some data on radical feminists diagnosed with PTSD. Otherwise we may be explaining a phenomenon that isn't actually there, and especially in a case like this, that makes me nervous -- since everyone's always wondering what's wrong with radical feminists that they hate men so much. And everything, really.
>
>
> so, how about adhd? add? pstd? eating disorders? autism spectrum
> disorders (e.g., asperger's disease),
As a side note, isn't there considerable debate on the spectrum question? I had occasion to sit as an outside-dept faculty member on senior comps in our psych department, and this came up quite specifically in one of them, where the student was talking about the spectrum, and two of the three psych faculty were resisting this, saying it had become the pop way of understanding autism and asperger's, but since we have no etiology here (right?) the connection between them is the connection of a purely symptomatic diagnosis. Autism looks like a more severe Asperger's, so they must be related. There was a big Newsweek cover article on this a couple of years ago, and it was presented as the new science at the same time as it was presented as the Right Science, but it seems like much ado about nothing, insofar as we still understand relatively little about how autism or asperger's actually works.
I would be very happy to be corrected and informed on this, since my efforts at understanding autism have been largely, well, frustrated.
> borderline personality disorder,
> obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety
> disorder (which is being diagnosed for people who are shy), seasonal
> affective disorder, etc.
>
> does the same apply?
>
> i don't think she's antipsychiatry.
Right. This is what I had been wondering.
j
>
>
> > I doubt any regulars here would question that Big Pharma's financial
> > mass warps the space in medicine, pushing drugs and other treatments
> > in ways that work against a patient's interests. So, as Chuck Grimes
> > suggests, you have to be careful. A good psychiatrist will ask
> > questions like that, how you're eating and sleeping, what you're
> > eating, living conditions, all with that therapist's cool gaze, and at
> > least with depression probably suggest some couch time. That's the
> > standard recommended treatment among caregivers: meds *plus* talk
> > therapy. It's also recognized that some meds will either be
> > ineffective or have intolerable side effects, which is why the
> > standard approach is to try different kinds of drugs in succession.
> > This is standard practice, as I understand it. It's also why some
> > people need a particular drug which might not be available as a
> > generic, even while other similar cheaper ones are available.
> >
> > Needless to say that all doesn't fit well with the priorities of our
> > current medical insurance system.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with the book you mention, so I can't talk about it
> > specifically. I will say that anti-psychiatry positions I've seen
> > have a knack for overreach.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>