I think
that this is an important topic.
Apparently, the DSM V (Diagostic and Statistical Manual) is coming out. The APA (American Psychiatric Association) is responsible for this publication. As is true with many things, this issue has become somewhat
political. The APA has added additional disorders to the DSM. For example, ‘skin-picking’ is added as a
disorder. And, of course, so is hoarding
and something called “Internet disorder”.
Here are two of the resources that I used in writing this blog: http://huff.lv/115xIo3
and a corresponding article http://bit.ly/Yytot5.
The various
experts in this video make some very logical points. They talk at various times about
'pathologizing' things. For
example, is viewing grief as pathology
a realistic view? They discuss the fact
that pharmaceutical companies benefit, as do psychiatrists, when something is
viewed as pathology. They talk about how
the APA benefits financially from printing each additional publication of the
DSM. They debate whether increasing the number of things seen as pathological
really leads to better treatment for people suffering from mental illness.
Because these experts represent their opinions better than I can, I invite you
to go to the links and access the discussion. It really does give you much food
for thought. It exams whether the fact
that the APA has expanded what is and isn’t illness will hurt the mentally ill
in the long run. And I think that is an
important question.
But it also
raised some other interesting points.
One of the most important is that health care generally IS a political
and financial issue. I see the reasons
that we debate about how available healthcare should be. It is possible that
with mental illness that debate is impacted by the fact that we don’t always
recognize the validity of different diagnoses.
And the fact that this country is involved in a debate about how well a
free market cares for those on the bottom of the economic ladder. But the most
important thing I heard on this video was the person who said that consumers
have to be trained to recognize and describe what is actually going on in our
bodies. We need to learn how to advocate
for ourselves. We need to be able to
describe to medical professionals how our symptoms impact our lives. The fact is that medical decisions and access
to treatment are political and financially influenced. We have to make our voices heard. We have to look at the impact of not
providing treatment on the community as a whole. And we have to be willing to make some noise.
For some of
us, that is difficult and close to impossible.
So, I guess that the other option is that caretakers of those suffering
from chronic and severe mental illness need to do the advocating. Obviously, sometimes even this isn’t
possible. What do you think? How can we be responsible for advocating for
our own needs in spite of the political ramifications and personal difficulties?
How do we advocate? For those able to advocate, I see the
following options: 1.We can vote for
politicians understanding our needs. 2.
We can take steps, as much as possible, to communicate with our doctors. 3. We can keep the issue alive and in front
of the general public. Is there something
that is missing? What do you see?
No comments:
Post a Comment