Sunday, February 27, 2011
What does the psychiatrist as he speaks with a patient?
People are much less frequently in the psychiatrist as a doctor specializing in internal diseases. Probably for fear that the psychiatrist they stick the label of a disease they will never unravel. This kind of thing happens, but fortunately very rare. Most often, people who spread these rumors are those that have received the correct diagnosis and who still consider themselves healthy.
During treatment, the psychiatrist will examine two issues: the patient suffers there from a mental illness and is it dangerous for others.
The consensus view of medicine - including psychiatry - as a science. Tens of thousands of essays, books have been written about it, many scientific conferences are held each year, there are many schools of psychiatry, but one thing is missing: a clear boundary defining the psychological health of mental illness.
In some cases, it is easy to diagnose schizophrenia or psychosis due to alcohol, derived from senility, post-childbirth and others. However, the difference between "normal" state and the condition is far from unequivocal.
Supporters of the cause Freudian think that the difference between mentally ill individuals and those of healthy mind is not qualitative but quantitative - can be observed in healthy individuals the same "stock of deviance" that the patient, except that in the latter this stock is a little longer provided. Psychiatric clinics see a portion of their patients the diagnosis of "psychopath", the "limiting case" of "neurosis". Although these individuals are not yet ill, they are no longer healthy.
Most of them "do not" psychiatric syndrome, but still lag from time to time absences psychic - temporary loss of self-control due to high stress, major depression (but not endogenous, c ' is to say, genetic), alcohol intoxication, jealousy unwarranted, hysterical reactions and much more.
Finally, mental illness is not necessarily a bad thing. For the relatives it is almost always bad for the patient, however, not. Van Gogh suffered from schizophrenia, manic symptoms Gogol and Dostoevsky was an epileptic depression. Without doubt they were geniuses because they were sick? If they had not suffered from a disease, would they have been of the greatest geniuses? Hard to say.
One of our main characters said: "If Christ were alive today, we probably would have locked in a madhouse." This is far from true: if psychiatry is apolitical (and ideally it is), the only criterion on which we can decide to detain someone in a psychiatric hospital based on the fact that this individual represents a danger to himself or others. The danger to himself as suicide and other aggression caused by his illness.
During the first discussion continued with the patient, the psychiatrist primarily as the criteria of dangerousness, and then only then pronounces a diagnosis and prescribe appropriate medications.