Re: madness

In a message dated 98-03-17 07:52:27 EST, you write:

> Maybe so, but it shouldn't be forgotten that the emergence
> of biological psychiatry comes in the wake of the gradual
> waning of the psychodynamic paradigm, no bad thing in my
> opinion, to a kind of neo-Kraepelinism;i.e. a return to
> Kraepelin (creator of the prototype for schizophrenia),
> where all concerns about cause are screened out only to
> resurface in "Western" psychiatric classification systems
> through the back door as individualised biomedical

What's interesting is that the power structure behind this neo-Kr. system
of classification (DSM) continue to deny that it is an etiologically based
system of classification. Just because it is used to justify the rampant
application of the biological model isn't their issue. This is actually what
they say.
I remember a day, not too long ago when we actually cared about etiology
and questioned both social and psychological aspects of the clients symptoms
as well. It was called the bio-psycho-social model. Don't hear much about this
any more. Just check out the Prozac ads in national magazines. There they
instruct the consumer that precipitant, personality and situation don't
matter. As they say, "even happy events can bring on a depression". The
control of the craft of psychiatry has passed out of the hands of concerned
individuals into a powerr structure that just keeps erecting more and more
barriers to genuine inquiry.
What if DSM is basically wrong? What if a categorical diagnostic system
is simply a mistaken approach? What could be done about it now??


Phil S.

Partial thread listing: