[di meliora]

Professor Paul Thagard begins by stating:

Studies of the neural and psychological effects of drugs support the mind-brain identity theory over its chief rival, dualism, which claims that minds are distinct from bodies. Identifying minds with brains requires specification of the nature of brain processes as neuroelectrochemical, drawing on the rich biochemistry that underlies the firing patterns commonly taken as the basic units of neural computation. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...l-implications

Thagard summates:

Psychopharmacology is relevant to assessing the plausibility of the main current theories of the relation between mind and matter: the identity theory and dualism. When the identity theory was developed in the 1950s, its proponents were mainly defensive, responding to arguments that dualists used to attack the claim that mental processes are brain processes. Very little was known then about the neural mechanisms responsible for sensation, cognition, and emotion. Since then, there have been dramatic advances in both the experimental and theoretical investigation of brain processes. New experimental techniques range from brain scanning technologies such as fMRI machines to using genetically modified mice to discover the chemical activity of different neurotransmitters and receptors. In vivid contrast to the dramatic progress in neuroscientific understanding over the past 50 years, dualism has taught us nothing about the nature of mental processes.

From the perspective of the mind-brain identity theory, it is straightforward to explain the psychological effects of drugs that affect neurochemistry. If mental states just are brain states, then it is obvious why drugs that change brain states should also change mental states. On the other hand, the dualist position that maintains that mental states are different from brain states has little to say about why changing the neurochemistry of the brain has mental effects. As long as mental states are viewed as non-material, it remains a mystery why substances like alcohol, caffeine, antidepressants, and narcotics change mental states.

Often I refer to the treatment team. The term as I employ it encompasses all who treat someone, with no distinction between the physical or mental. The mind-brain identity theory Thagard speaks of reminds me of the “polythetic pluralism” Dr. Ronald Pies speaks of:

Just so! How, then, can psychiatry be both medical science and healing art? I believe the way forward is via what I call “polythetic pluralism.” “Polythetic” refers to several shared characteristics, none of which is essential for membership in a particular class. “Pluralism” refers to the use of several different models, approaches, or methods, not all of which may be appropriate in any given situation—the best model or method being dependent on the evidence supporting it and the facts at hand. Thus, the model of psychiatry I have in mind is characterized by the use of several different approaches to diagnosis and treatment, sharing some features in common, no one of which defines the “essence” of psychiatry. In this sense, I fully agree with Kontos’s conclusion that “ . . . the complexity of contemporary medicine is such that it cannot be served by just one model at either the macro (ie, scientific and clinical) or micro (ie, within clinical) levels.” So much for airy abstraction—how might polythetic pluralism work in clinical practice? http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog...6?pageNumber=2

Pies concludes:

In my view, psychiatry should not aim to be a “physical science” or a “natural science”—but neither should it confine itself, in Cartesian fashion, to being a “mental science.” Psychiatry ought to be both a medical science and a healing art—and must find a way to embrace and meld elements of both. Psychiatry should be a medical science in so far as it studies conditions of health and disease; adheres to the best available controlled evidence; and uses the tools of “objective” medical practice, such as laboratory studies and brain imaging. At the same time, psychiatry should be a healing art, in so far as it concerns itself with the intimate subjectivity and “inner world” of the patient. There is no incompatibility or conflict between these complementary realms: “molecules” and “motives” are simply two lenses through which we view one and the same human condition.

What I am describing is akin to what Ghaemi20 describes as the “biological existentialism” of Karl Jaspers. And—although some physicians may chafe at this—the model I am proposing is also close in spirit to the “nursing model” described above: ie, “a holistic . . . assessment of all dimensions of the person (physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual) that assumes multiple causes for the problems experienced by the patient.” However, as Kontos commented to me (personal communication, October 12, 2011), this putative “nursing” model really represents the qualities found in all good physicians, independent of any theoretical “model” of medical care and treatment.

Albert Einstein once observed, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” In order for psychiatry to escape the “fly bottle” in which it now finds itself, we must bring together the intuitive and the rational mind. And we must do this not in service of a theory or ideology, but in the service of reducing suffering and enhancing the quality of life for our patients.

What is somewhat problematical for me is Dr. Pies argument in 2005:

In this editorial, I argue that—like the optician and the art critic—neurology and psychiatry are guided by significantly different narratives or what postmodern philosophers like to call discourses. Discourses are essentially the "…complex[es] of credentials, protocols, jargon, and specialized knowledge that defines theory and practice within the human sciences…"2 Discourses include the linguistic core of a discipline, as represented in its textbooks, journal articles, and habitual modes of presenting data. I would like to suggest that, while not nearly so far apart as the optician and the art critic, the disciplines of psychiatry and neurology still utilize discourses too disparate to permit a merger of the two fields in the very near future. Thus, my argument is that psychiatry and neurology cannot simply merge. I hope it will become clear that this is quite a different claim than, psychiatry and neurology simply cannot merge. With the appropriate transitional mechanisms and discourses, there is reason to believe that psychiatry and neurology will someday find themselves subsumed in a larger and broader discipline that I call encephiatrics ("brain healing"). http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/ar...ticleid=101983

These articles suggest the viability of an holistic approach to healing. David Katz, M.D, talks about holistic medicine and the practical implications here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_828643.html

There is much work to be done to sort through the perplexities of the complexities of employing all pertinent treatment modalities to the healing of a consumer's malaise. Even so, I have some optimism from the debate going on that there are advances being made, despite Big Pharma and the agglomeration of fools running governments.

I've kinda thought psychiatry and psychology were necessary evils in a monotheistc and capitalistic culture, such as we are in. The drs are pawns. They serve the national economy. The ensure domestic tranquility.

Healers, that doesn't fit with my experience. A healer helps the afflicted heal. The drs in mental health field, wound then build back new people. Sometimes without their consent. So, they slaughter the original personality, then replace it. One that serves the national economy. They don't observe hippocratus. They are atheists.

I don't intend on provoking organized crime. I don't intend on provoking mental health workers. I survive. I have to adapt to the mental health treatment. You all have marked your territory, I'll respect your territory. I'll support the national economy. I'll provide for domestic tranquility. I will not, however, recogize your workers as healers. A healer is sacred. Mental health workers are not sacred. They are profit motivated and self serving. Don't insult a sacred image, the healer, by using this word to describe yourself. Respectfully.

[di meliora]

brookwest, your commentary is sobering. Upon reading it, the admonition to physicians to heal thyself occurred to me. Health care in the U.S. has much to be concerned about. For me, allowing Big Pharma to advertize directly to consumers simply is wrong.

Albeit, I am convinced the voices of consumers now have more that are listening.

I wish you well in your quest to heal yourself.

I feel like I'm living in a human slaughterhouse.