gyrofry posted:

patient B: recovering addict describes pain in kidney area.
options:
- remove kidney. prescribe post-op opiates and lifelong dialysis.
- counseling and methadone

but how do we know they're really a recovering addict though? they could just be faking it. are you really going to proscribe methadone to a potential non-addict who might really just be a weirdo and who really needs treatment for being weird and possibly furry??

iFederico posted:

Lessons posted:
roseweird posted:
what the hell are you two talking about

trans fakers who are just doing it for the attention


i think it's far more likely they are doing it for the radical inclusivity since the trans community is incredibly tolerant even of totally dysfunctional weirdos

i think thats a really marginal problem, along the lines of people who get themselves addicted to heroin b/c only heroin addicts will tolerate them. and that it will basically resolve itself since it's a shitload of effort and theyll just give up. but it's really not worth talking about anymore.

Goethestein posted:

roseweird posted:

Goethestein posted:

roseweird posted:

so how exactly do you propose treating such people, prescribe a gym membership and several minutes of screaming "FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT"?



medication and therapy, same with any other serious mental illness.

lol what fucking 'medication' are you proposing goshfkeen, and why can't you regard hormones as medication

antidepressants and antipsychotics. hormones aren't medication because they just make the problem worse

i will shit down your fucking throat

Lessons posted:

the cool thing is that the idea of expert psychiatrists diagnosing mental illness on the basis of acute perception and scientific tests is almost entirely a myth. the vast majority of outpatient psychiatric diagnoses are the result of either clients coming into an office, complaining of depression/anxiety/whatever and getting the diagnosis they want, or from the results of short psychometric surveys like the Beck Depression Inventory, (essentially, glorified self-report). self-report is also the gold standard in research psychology because it's actually the most objective metric we have. we can't directly observe people's minds so the determinations of clinicians are essentially subjective opinions, (if ones more informed than those of the average layman), and there aren't any physiological tests for mental illness that are widely accepted. and at a more basic level there's no small amount of controversy within the psychiatric and psychological community as to what exactly mental illness is, which you see in things like the BPS rejecting the DSM-5 and so on, but tends to run more deeply even within the US as you have different practitioners working from different perspectives with differing conceptions of the constitution and cause of mental illness.

so basically I totally reject that assessment, we cant really rely on the experts here because a) cognitive science isn't really as advanced as the popular conception implies and b) different professionals don't actually agree especially on particularly controversial issues like this. we'd almost always be better-off with client-directed therapy and to some extent that's what we already have, at least in outpatient care like i said earlier, except for some rare circumstances like gender identity where people are forced to jump through ridiculous and humiliating hoops to prove they aren't just fakey fake fakers to people like gyrofry.

yes, i, too, am a self-diagnosed aspergers/ADD/dragonkin

but seriously, if its that difficult for people who have spent years being trained to recognize the symptoms of mental illness, think of how much harder it is for a confused internet teen who sits in the tumblrbox all day. im not saying that self-reporting is useless (how would doctors even know where to begin looking otherwise), but acting like standardized and objective criteria arent helpful for making diagnoses seems like some Scientologist "all psychiatry is a lie" bullshit

Superabound posted:

yes, i, too, am a self-diagnosed aspergers/ADD/dragonkin

but seriously, if its that difficult for people who have spent years being trained to recognize the symptoms of mental illness, think of how much harder it is for a confused internet teen who sits in the tumblrbox all day. im not saying that self-reporting is useless (how would doctors even know where to begin looking otherwise), but acting like standardized and objective criteria arent helpful for making diagnoses seems like some Scientologist "all psychiatry is a lie" bullshit

here's the wacky crypto-scientologists at the British Psychological Society saying nearly the same thing.

The Society is concerned that clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences; responses which undoubtedly have distressing consequences which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation.

...

The putative diagnoses presented in DSM-V are clearly based largely on social norms, with 'symptoms' that all rely on subjective judgements, with little confirmatory physical 'signs' or evidence of biological causation. The criteria are not value-free, but rather reflect current normative social expectations. Many researchers have pointed out that psychiatric diagnoses are plagued by problems of reliability, validity, prognostic value, and co-morbidity.

...

Diagnostic systems such as these therefore fall short of the criteria for legitimate medical diagnoses. They certainly identify troubling or troubled people, but do not meet the criteria for categorisation demanded for a field of science or medicine (with a very few exceptions such as dementia.) We are also concerned that systems such as this are based on identifying problems as located within individuals. This misses the relational context of problems and the undeniable social causation of many such problems. For psychologists, our wellbeing and mental health stem from our frameworks of understanding of the world, frameworks which are themselves the product of the experiences and learning through our lives.

The Society recommends a revision of the way mental distress is thought about, starting with recognition of the overwhelming evidence that it is on a spectrum with 'normal' experience, and that psychosocial factors such as poverty, unemployment and trauma are the most strongly-evidenced causal factors. Rather than applying preordained diagnostic categories to clinical populations, we believe that any classification system should begin from the bottom up – starting with specific experiences, problems or ‘symptoms’ or ‘complaints’.

this isn't scientology or even RD Liang, it's mainstream psychology

Lessons posted:

Superabound posted:

yes, i, too, am a self-diagnosed aspergers/ADD/dragonkin

but seriously, if its that difficult for people who have spent years being trained to recognize the symptoms of mental illness, think of how much harder it is for a confused internet teen who sits in the tumblrbox all day. im not saying that self-reporting is useless (how would doctors even know where to begin looking otherwise), but acting like standardized and objective criteria arent helpful for making diagnoses seems like some Scientologist "all psychiatry is a lie" bullshit

here's the wacky crypto-scientologists at the British Psychological Society saying nearly the same thing.

The Society is concerned that clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences; responses which undoubtedly have distressing consequences which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation.

...

The putative diagnoses presented in DSM-V are clearly based largely on social norms, with 'symptoms' that all rely on subjective judgements, with little confirmatory physical 'signs' or evidence of biological causation. The criteria are not value-free, but rather reflect current normative social expectations. Many researchers have pointed out that psychiatric diagnoses are plagued by problems of reliability, validity, prognostic value, and co-morbidity.

...

Diagnostic systems such as these therefore fall short of the criteria for legitimate medical diagnoses. They certainly identify troubling or troubled people, but do not meet the criteria for categorisation demanded for a field of science or medicine (with a very few exceptions such as dementia.) We are also concerned that systems such as this are based on identifying problems as located within individuals. This misses the relational context of problems and the undeniable social causation of many such problems. For psychologists, our wellbeing and mental health stem from our frameworks of understanding of the world, frameworks which are themselves the product of the experiences and learning through our lives.

The Society recommends a revision of the way mental distress is thought about, starting with recognition of the overwhelming evidence that it is on a spectrum with 'normal' experience, and that psychosocial factors such as poverty, unemployment and trauma are the most strongly-evidenced causal factors. Rather than applying preordained diagnostic categories to clinical populations, we believe that any classification system should begin from the bottom up – starting with specific experiences, problems or ‘symptoms’ or ‘complaints’.

this isn't scientology or even RD Liang, it's mainstream psychology

fyi, literally everything in that post is an argument against overdiagnosing (which is greatly exacerbated by the self-diagnosis of "identity culture inclusive" disorders) and on-demand drug/hormone therapy. youre undermining your own argument

gyrofry posted:

it's unfortunate that you are willing to play so casually with the health and well-being of human beings

this is concern trolling