Lecture on mental health

I went to a section of a class on medical advances of the 20th century that I am taking; today's section was on mental health. The man who is giving the course is an MD. Once again I am struck by the differences in how people see mental health if they are "on the inside" versus how they see it if they are "on the outside". If they are on the outside, it seems to me that mostly they really have nothing to go on, to judge whether something is valid or not. They seem to rely on what other people have done, on statistical studies, or whatever. And most of the other people who are taking this short course are similar in their attitudes; they mostly accept what the lecturer is saying, and have no really independent way of judging for themselves. The lecturer seems to me to be a capable person and has thought about medical history more than the average person, but I would not want him as someone to direct me to help with emotional problems. I do not see a person who listens carefully to others; not a mindful person. I find that discouraging.

I think doctors just have the weight of experience of those who have tried to "help" those with mental illnesses, whatever experiments or studies have been done. Since a doctor's experiences has to be what he "sees" and works with, it's going to be a bit like a male obstetrician telling a woman how to have a baby :-) But, with the baby, that's almost wholly physical (like a broken leg) so they have an easier time of it than with an individual's mental health, since no two individuals are quite the same in their mental health and there's not much they can "see" other than some observations of behavior perhaps or what they relate as their experience.

I don't know that individuals know much about mental/emotional problems other than their own, whereas the breadth of a doctor''s/therapist's experience trying to help many different individuals with different issues might make them a bit more help than we on the "inside".

Well an MD is not a specialist in mental health. That's like a butcher showing a chef how to make a cake!

No, but he has studied the history of medicine quite a bit -- and the history of mental health too. For instance, he talked quite a bit about Freud, and Egas Moniz, and so on...

His outlook on mental health treatment is probably representative of the more educated general medical health professionals. Which is not all that encouraging to me!

Yes but there is a good reason why medical Doctors are not qualified as psychologists or specialize in mental health. It takes 6 years at least to become a clinical psychologist. Unless he is a clinical psychologist as well. You wouldn't go to an MD or GP for therapy would ya?

But they are the ones who refer you for mental health help...

Not the expert though. Like I said it's like asking a butcher to show a chef how to make a cake. If you want informed information you want the lecture from a clinical psychologist that truly knows, has been trained etc. You can bet your life you know more than the MD! Some in the medical field are still sticking to psychiatry and meds and I have heard some real trollop from those that simply don't have a clue! Ok Pachyderm, you give the lecture next time!

After over forty years of treatment for depression, I am not at all impressed with the state of the art today. We still are guinea pigs who try this, that and the next thing until something seems to work. If it does help, often no one knows why.

One psychiatrist summed up my experience this way. "You are too arrogant to listen, too stubborn to believe you can get better and too foolish not to give up and die." Nonetheless, these same professionals in due course have never once said they can help me get better.

I have learned from all of them. I am alive because of what I learned from them. But, as it should be, I am able to function better because of what I put together from the paid talkers who never seemed to agree on anything.

I have actually thought about teaching a short course titled "What Is Mental Illness?" -- but it will be a while before I am prepared to do something like that!

Let us know the date and venue, Pachy, and we'll be there to cheer you on :-)

Yep! Absolutely!

Pachy, what did the speaker say were the advances in Mental Health?

I think each profession has its mindset, and the speaker was probably approaching mental health from a medical model--it's all he knows how to do. Where I work there is a clinical psychology program, and it has a certain perspective. All the grads come out thinking much the same as each other. I don't like their perspective that much. I see this trickle down even to the undergrad level. I took some undergrad psych courses at this university recently, and it's very interesting to hear all the professors spout the same party line. And the undergrads are so young and malleable. In short order they end up thinking the same as their profs. So yes, a lot has to do with the profession, but also with where the practitioners did their training.

If nothing else, it sounds like the lecture was interesting in how it revealed a profession's beliefs and values.

I attended a public lecture on Depression a couple of years ago given by a pdoc from the university. It was quite good, and I found him compassionate and with a sophisticated understanding. There were several people with overt mental illness in the audience, and he fielded their questions and interruptions with great grace and respect.

I too would like to attend your lecture, pachy!

Take a look at the "No Kidding, Me Too" DVD. Just came out this week and addresses this very issue.

He went through some history first, from the asylums of old through Freud (not scientific) and prefrontal lobotomies (bad) and shock treatments (OK sometimes) through medications (improvements) and the latest scanning techniques. He admits that progress in mental health understanding and treatments lag behind those in physical medicine. He wants and expects mental health treatments to become more "scientific" and thinks that advances in brain-scanning techniques and the understanding of how brain cells communicate will be the paths to those advances. I think people nowadays emphasize that too much, neglecting psychology for "brain science". I think that "brain science" should be a complement to psychological understanding, not a replacement for it.

I'm with everyone else, sign me up, I'd take a road trip for that

And I agree with your statement on brain science should be a complment not a replacement, yes a portion of mental health is chemical and founded in the brain, however there are emotional issues, not everyone with bipolar disorder (for example, speaking from my realm of knowledge) reacts the same way, has the same mood cycles, reactions, etc. There is an indvidual with individual needs, it's been my experience (not a whole lot since I am rather young) that a lot of psychatriy is hit and miss, trial and error, I'm not sure if brain science will help that at all. I know medical science is trial and error too, but seems from what I've experinced theres a whole lot more trial in psychatriy, I think that's because they forget there is an indivdual there.

(p.s. forgive my spelling, it's pre-coffee intake)

Pachyderm, You are absolutely right that psychology and "brain science" should be complimentary. I'm in a social science field and see that although there is some work in looking at neurology in psychiatry, I believe that there is little connections between the fields. There are some psychiatrists who will only talk to you about medications and possibly therapy, not considering other possibilities. I'm glad that there is some research on the effects of CBT and other treatments besides medications.

There is an article in the April 2010 issue of Scientific American magazine titled "Faulty Circuits" that is the type of thing that really triggers me. Although at one point the author mentions that a person's experience may have something to do with the development of "faulty circuits" virtually all the article is devoted to examining the circuits, and he presents brain study as a replacement for psychology. One more way, as I see it, of presenting what may be a way to avoid examining how a person's experiences can lead to mental illness and dressing it up as "science". I see that so much in present-day mental health treatment. I have given up thinking of further therapy because I do not see anyone who is willing to look at my pain, preferring instead, apparently, to avoid theirs.

I actually submitted a Letter to the Editor on this article, but I don't know if that will have any effect at all. After all, brain science is so much more "scientific" than psychology!

LOL, Pachyderm. You're probably right that most of society thinks that hard science is more "scientfiic" than we in "soft" sciences. The fact is that research done in psychology has just as much validity as that done my neuroscience or psychiatry. Can we at least hope that someday that research from psychology will be accepted as credible?
~lila