Comments on: The export of mental illness concepts

By: homebuilding

homebuilding — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:01:00 +0000

True enough. Every revision of the DSM gets thicker–the parameters of deviancy every broader, whilst ‘normalcy’ definitions narrow. I was there in 1973 when they held a vote to cure homosexuality–yes, they did so by a majority agreeing that it was no longer an illness. Pretty slick system they have in place. Oh, and you’ll never visit them in a clinical setting WITHOUT a diagnosis being made–MDs always have the option of ‘no worries, mate….’ Not so, these folks !

By: Aidan Sonoda

Aidan Sonoda — Thu, 20 May 2010 21:35:39 +0000

This simply isn’t true. Merely listening to this very program a few days ago, one would have encountered a discussion regarding the efforts of mental health professionals to amend existing systems to more accurately reflect the clinical observations of “hoarding” disorders. Your statement simply ignores the multitudes of revisions that we have applied to our understanding of mental health in the last twenty years. Take a look at a psychology textbook from 1980 and one from today… I guarantee you’ll find both more and more varied/nuanced diagnosis in the latter.

By: d j register

d j register — Tue, 18 May 2010 14:55:28 +0000

The Western system of mental health treatment has long required a “domestication process” when managing the mentally ill social problem of society. As in that old laughable skit of seeing a doctor whittle a square peg to fit into a round hole, our systems exist for the convenience of its providers. Those who make a living within them. Randomness of mentally illness sadly is shaped into fitting into these systems for management purposes. This is where the DSMs come in (this practice may be subconscious, but it does operate.) What if they ever discovered a mental illness that they did not already have a preexisting system in order to manage it? Well, we know that answer. They would change the illness.