This hearing woman says that mental illness is a Myth - ASL video

Hear Again said:
no, i do not. if someone in the 1300s suffered from schizophrenic type symptoms, it does not automatically mean they have schizophrenia since this illness was not discovered until 1887 by dr. emile kraepelin.
Click to expand...

The disease exsisted from the dawn of time. This person just named it and wrote down the symptoms.
 
faire_jour said:
I disagree with this statement. When her doctor's were denying Miss Kat's hearing loss, it didn't mean it wasn't there. She was still Deaf, she just didn't have their "seal of approval" yet.
Click to expand...

you're comparing apples to oranges, faire_jour. hearing loss is a diagnosis that has been around for centuries unlike certain mental illnesses that have only been discovered as late as the 1950s.
 
Hear Again said:
we can't conclude whether or not bob had the illness in question since there was no diagnostic criteria available at the time in order to make an accurate diagnosis.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying now. Correct me if I'm wrong: You're saying there WERE illnesses back then (before there were any names) but since a diagnosis has a specific criteria and rarely do doctors actually happen to ask the right questions at the time to see if it meets criteria, it's almost impossible to make a diagnosis for something specific for someone back then.

For example, for the mental illness "A" (Im just making it up), symptoms are X, Y, Z. Back then, the doctor saw symptoms X and Y, but did not ask about Z because he did not know to ask about it since the illness/diagnosis criteria was not known at the time. Sure, it's more LIKELY that he did have "A" if he was diagnosed with it in the future, but not for sure.
 
Hear Again said:
you're comparing apples to oranges, faire_jour. hearing loss is a diagnosis that has been around for centuries unlike certain mental illnesses that have only been discovered as late as the 1950s.
Click to expand...

But the disease was still there. They just didn't have a name for it yet. People didn't just suddenly start becoming bipolar once there was a name for it.
 
faire_jour said:
But the disease was still there. They just didn't have a name for it yet. People didn't just suddenly start becoming bipolar once there was a name for it.
Click to expand...

again, let's just agree to disagree. you're not going to convince me of your point and i'm not going to convince you of mine. :cool2:
 
Daredevel7 said:
I see what you're saying now. Correct me if I'm wrong: You're saying there WERE illnesses back then (before there were any names) but since a diagnosis has a specific criteria and rarely do doctors actually happen to ask the right questions at the time to see if it meets criteria, it's almost impossible to make a diagnosis for something specific for someone back then.

For example, for the mental illness "A" (Im just making it up), symptoms are X, Y, Z. Back then, the doctor saw symptoms X and Y, but did not ask about Z because he did not know to ask about it since the illness/diagnosis criteria was not known at the time. Sure, it's more LIKELY that he did have "A" if he was diagnosed with it in the future, but not for sure.
Click to expand...

that's exactly what i'm saying.
 
Hear Again said:
i'm not going to repeat myself, so let's just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

So you don't think they had the disease? That doesn't make sense. People only started having bipolar in 1950? Why? What on earth suddenly started changing people's brain chemistry THAT year?
 
we are arguing in circles. i have nothing more to say on the subject for now.
 
Daredevel7 said:
My question to you is, did Bob HAVE the illness back then if he is only diagnosed NOW?

I wonder what kind of information we are missing right now for those who aren't diagnosed accordingly at the present time...
Click to expand...

Well, we are getting a bit off track. What brought this whole thing up was the discussion of PASS and BIID, and whether they would become valid diagnoses at some future time.

Here is the point: all of the clinical features described already fit into another diagnostic category. There are no features described for either of these "disorders" that do not fit within a diagnostic category already available. There is nothing that sets them apart from the diagnostic category currently being used.

In other words, there would have to be symptoms that could not be accounted for in another diagnosis in order to warrant a separate diagnostic label for these disorders. And there simply aren't. So no need for another diagnostic label.
 
jillio said:
Well, we are getting a bit off track. What brought this whole thing up was the discussion of PASS and BIID, and whether they would become valid diagnoses at some future time.

Here is the point: all of the clinical features described already fit into another diagnostic category. There are no features described for either of these "disorders" that do not fit within a diagnostic category already available. There is nothing that sets them apart from the diagnostic category currently being used.

In other words, there would have to be symptoms that could not be accounted for in another diagnosis in order to warrant a separate diagnostic label for these disorders. And there simply aren't. So no need for another diagnostic label.
Click to expand...


Yes but aren't there subsets to a diagnosis? Such as the different types of depression. I'm sure at one point they were all considered as just "Depression", then after seeing further symptoms/patterns, they created a more specific diagnosis, but it's still considered depression, just a specific type.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Yes but aren't there subsets to a diagnosis? Such as the different types of depression. I'm sure at one point they were all considered as just "Depression", then after seeing further symptoms/patterns, they created a more specific diagnosis, but it's still considered depression, just a specific type.
Click to expand...

Subsets appear when there are manifest symptoms that fall outside the diagnostic category. That is not the case here. All symptoms described fall within the criteria of another diagnosis. There is nothing left unaccounted for.
 
jillio said:
Subsets appear when there are manifest symptoms that fall outside the diagnostic category. That is not the case here. All symptoms described fall within the criteria of another diagnosis. There is nothing left unaccounted for.
Click to expand...

I see. I wasn't paying particular attention to PASS nor BIID, just speaking in general sense. Alright, I'm satisfied. Thanks Jillio and Hear Again for explaining. You too, dreama, for bringing up the topic.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I see. I wasn't paying particular attention to PASS nor BIID, just speaking in general sense. Alright, I'm satisfied. Thanks Jillio and Hear Again for explaining. You too, dreama, for bringing up the topic.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I just felt the discussion was going in a direction that was making things more unclear than clarified.
 
Last edited:
Daredevel7 said:
I see. I wasn't paying particular attention to PASS nor BIID, just speaking in general sense. Alright, I'm satisfied. Thanks Jillio and Hear Again for explaining. You too, dreama, for bringing up the topic.
Click to expand...

no problem! :)
 
daredevel,

when it comes to depression, there is only one kind, so no subset exists. however, a person's condition may be described as being mild, moderate or severe. in addition, a person may be noted to have suicidal depression -- although this is not considered a subset.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I am officially confused. I think dreama was just saying that even though a lot of mental illnesses weren't discovered until the 1800s or later, that doesn't mean it didn't EXIST before then. Bi-polar, manic-depression, etc, have always existed, but they just didn't have the diagnosis for it or use a very general diagnosis.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. Various conditions existed before they were officially listed or known about.

In the case of the Autism diagnoses the criteria was already quite specific but it only refered to people who suffered from Kanner type autism. Not asperger syndrome. So a lot of Asperger's went undiagnosed. They were still Autistic but their parents were accused of spoiling them or they were missdiagnosed with mental health problems and shut away in mental hospitals. Or they ended up in prison.
 
dreama said:
Yes, that's right. Various conditions existed before they were officially listed or known about.
Click to expand...

one cannot have a condition if there is no diagnosis for it. a condition has to be discovered first before it can be diagnosed.
 
faire_jour said:
So you don't think they had the disease? That doesn't make sense. People only started having bipolar in 1950? Why? What on earth suddenly started changing people's brain chemistry THAT year?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is very illogic. Like thinking there were nobody with Asperger until 1990's.
 
Back
Top