Live data from Hacker News

Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

blogs.scientificamerican.com

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#91

Most researchers agree that mental disorders should not have names, as it is difficult or impossible to draw discrete boundaries in this complex and poorly-understood spectrum of symptoms. However, as a broad generalization, researchers are the only group who feel this way: - Doctors like names because then they can provide a diagnosis and recommend action based on the diagnosis - Patients and their loved ones (often…

Now that I think about it, this is the reason naming things in general is so hard, including computer science.

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#92

Most researchers agree that mental disorders should not have names, as it is difficult or impossible to draw discrete boundaries in this complex and poorly-understood spectrum of symptoms. However, as a broad generalization, researchers are the only group who feel this way: - Doctors like names because then they can provide a diagnosis and recommend action based on the diagnosis - Patients and their loved ones (often…

> Most researchers agree that mental disorders should not have names, as it is difficult or impossible to draw discrete boundaries in this complex and poorly-understood spectrum of symptoms.

By that logic, we shouldn't name species either.

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#93

Most researchers agree that mental disorders should not have names, as it is difficult or impossible to draw discrete boundaries in this complex and poorly-understood spectrum of symptoms. However, as a broad generalization, researchers are the only group who feel this way: - Doctors like names because then they can provide a diagnosis and recommend action based on the diagnosis - Patients and their loved ones (often…

> Drug companies like names because they can develop drugs for specific disorders rather than for a combinatorially large number of factors

Which then mysteriously only seem to work on a small fraction of people diagnosed with that disorder, no?

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#94

Most researchers agree that mental disorders should not have names, as it is difficult or impossible to draw discrete boundaries in this complex and poorly-understood spectrum of symptoms. However, as a broad generalization, researchers are the only group who feel this way: - Doctors like names because then they can provide a diagnosis and recommend action based on the diagnosis - Patients and their loved ones (often…

I completely agree with your overall analysis, as well as the main point of the original article. The one thing I would add or clarify is that even the phrase "mental disorder" may not be the best way to refer to this class of symptoms/behaviors. I believe that "mental injury" would be both more accurate, and more conducive to healing.

A substantial portion of the things we refer to as "mental illness" are the after-effects of trauma. When you break your leg and you can't walk for 6 months afterwards, people don't say you have a "leg illness". It's not some unspecified thing which caused your leg to stop performing like most people's legs. It's a fracture. If set properly and given time to heal, it will resume normal functioning. If it's never set, or if it gets reinjured, it may lead to a permanent disability.

Minds can be broken as well. Any one who has ever experienced an abusive relationship knows this. Survivors of child abuse know this. A "mental fracture" isn't primarily physical, like a fracture of the leg, but it has a similar effect in terms of impairing the organ to perform its role correctly.

But mental injuries can be "set" and healed, just like physical ones. Perhaps not 100%, perhaps there will always be scar tissue or some version of impaired mobility where the injury occurred. But injuries heal with time, given proper care.

I am aware that this concept is fairly at odds with the western conception of mental health with its myriad disorders, all of which are unexplained and presumably lifelong diseases. I attribute this entire weird world of DSM pseudoscience with its gargantuan and ever-growing list of labels to the massive social pressure against dealing with the actual problem of trauma and abuse.

Correctly diagnosing someone with a "mental injury resulting from trauma/abuse" would lead to some extremely difficult conversations, which most people (even the ones experiencing the abuse) would prefer not to have.

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#95

Just imagine a doctor telling you what ICD code you have. There's nothing wrong with classification and labeling things. I think society is getting a little carried away with such topics. Personally, I think it's a phase that collectively we'll pass and reflect on how extreme we took things in order to try and obtain balance. There's a difference in calling someone "crazy" vs saying they have a mental disorder. The m…

From a technical standpoint, ICD codes are intended primarily for financial and reporting purposes. When you need more nuanced clinical data a different coding system such as SNOMED CT might be more appropriate. It allows for multiple post-coordinated qualifiers including severity and other dimensions.

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#96
Person comes to conclusion that objective tool doesn't work because it doesn't give him the results he wants. I'm glad he didn't get to just subjectively call people bipolar or not based on what he wants, it would just bias his research and make it all scientifically useless. Whether you like skid or not, at least "According to skid patient is in box X" has a definite meaning, and can be scientifically trusted to mean something. Opposite to that "This one specific doctor based on this one single interaction decided that the person fits in box Y" is just completely useless.

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#97

The root issue here is finding some path forward for helping people. Psychiatry, psychology etc aren't doing a great job with that. He tries to determine what has happened historically but not why. Why was this guy using drugs starting at age ten? What led up to that? Shouldn't it be classified as a parenting failure, not a "disorder" on his part? What was the history with the father? Perhaps assaulting his father wa…

> Why was this guy using drugs starting at age ten? What led up to that? Shouldn't it be classified as a parenting failure, not a "disorder" on his part?

"So you say your father broke your arm.... This isn't a bone fracture! It's bad parenting, now go home, no medical attention for you".

You are looking to see if some mental/physiological process is in disorder, so it's not about whether you caused it or your father caused it. The question to ask is does the patient fit in box X, because we have scientific studies saying that a large number of patients in box X when given treatment Y move to box Z, which is classified as being better than X.

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#98
post #97

The root issue here is finding some path forward for helping people. Psychiatry, psychology etc aren't doing a great job with that. He tries to determine what has happened historically but not why. Why was this guy using drugs starting at age ten? What led up to that? Shouldn't it be classified as a parenting failure, not a "disorder" on his part? What was the history with the father? Perhaps assaulting his father wa…

> Why was this guy using drugs starting at age ten? What led up to that? Shouldn't it be classified as a parenting failure, not a "disorder" on his part? "So you say your father broke your arm.... This isn't a bone fracture! It's bad parenting, now go home, no medical attention for you". You are looking to see if some mental/physiological process is in disorder, so it's not about whether you caused it or your father…

"So you say your father broke your arm.... This isn't a bone fracture! It's bad parenting, now go home, no medical attention for you"

So your father broke your arm at age ten. And broke your arm annually every year thereafter because he's an abusive asshat. And doctors decided to label you with some bizarre form of osteoporosis that must be the underlying cause of your frequent and mysterious fractures. And when you finally smack dad in the head with a hammer as an adult in self defense, it goes in your file that you are not only crazy but also dangerous and violent, even though you've never been violent with anyone else ever.

Better solution: You need a restraining order on your father who should not see you without court supervision while he finishes up his jail sentence for assault and battery and child abuse. He goes to therapy. You get put in a safe environment with adults who don't break your arm annually while claiming it's you that's defective.

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#99

Most researchers agree that mental disorders should not have names, as it is difficult or impossible to draw discrete boundaries in this complex and poorly-understood spectrum of symptoms. However, as a broad generalization, researchers are the only group who feel this way: - Doctors like names because then they can provide a diagnosis and recommend action based on the diagnosis - Patients and their loved ones (often…

I completely agree with your overall analysis, as well as the main point of the original article. The one thing I would add or clarify is that even the phrase "mental disorder" may not be the best way to refer to this class of symptoms/behaviors. I believe that "mental injury" would be both more accurate, and more conducive to healing. A substantial portion of the things we refer to as "mental illness" are the after-…

How exactly would you "set" a mental injury?

Re: Should Mental Disorders Have Names?

#100

Most researchers agree that mental disorders should not have names, as it is difficult or impossible to draw discrete boundaries in this complex and poorly-understood spectrum of symptoms. However, as a broad generalization, researchers are the only group who feel this way: - Doctors like names because then they can provide a diagnosis and recommend action based on the diagnosis - Patients and their loved ones (often…

This is essentially it. The names are a fiction. You let somebody say that you or your dependant is "disordered" or what have you, even if functionally they're doing better than most people, and in exchange you get benefits. Insurance coverage, social assistance, access to specialized programs, certain social privledges.

I do wonder if we're absolutely fucking up the minds of a generation of people by giving more and more people the made up labels. They come hand in hand with stigma and insecurity. We've been loosening diagnostic criteria continually on the dubious grounds that we "better understand" mental illness in the past. When it gets down to brass tacks we just decided as society labelling more people as "different" and treating them differently was for the best. Beyond the concern I have for individuals more and more people are qualifying for disability assistance every year and its unsustainable financially.

I do wish we had a model of mental health that was more focused on addressing more granular individual strengths/weaknesses and one less prone to just saying a broad swathe of people who are nothing alike are part of the same "spectrum".

Post reply on HN