Does psychiatry have a financial interest in expanding the definition of mental illness?

Does both the pharmaceutical industry and the psychiatry profession have strong financial interests in convincing the public that drug treatment is safe and the most effective treatment for mental illness,

The National Institute of Mental Illness reports that currently only 36 percent of those who suffer from mental illness actually seek and receive treatment but they would still like to expand the definitions. What and why should be a concern to everyone.
There is no question that among the medical profession, psychiatry is the most scientifically primitive. The latest revision to the America Psychiastric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) has drawn strong criticism. "Owing to criticism over the perceived proliferation of diagnoses in the current edition of the DSM, David Kupfer, M.D., who is the DSM-5 Task Force chair and is shepherding the DSM's revision, said in an interview: "One of the raps against psychiatry is that you and I are the only two people in the U.S. without a psychiatric diagnosis."

Dr. Daniel Carlet, an Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts University admits, "We are no more than the most rudimentary understanding of the pathophysiology of mental illness and we have resorted to tenuous and ever-shifting theories of how ..treatments work."

Health, Beauty & Fitness
Share
0 2

Both the pharmaceutical and psychiatric institutions have a profound interest in make for all manner of recourse pharmaco-therpahy the standard norm one size fit all method without the inclusion of other external theraphies. In ages gone pass it was the duty of an apothecary to make ready remedies to prevent,treat,cure ails and afflictions but today we introduce individuals whom are ready to cast off there humanity for the sake of a free bill. In the infancy of psychology and it is in itself now entering a point of maybe prepubescent adolescence where some strives have been made in the regards of neuro-science to explore the uncharted regions of synaptic connections we have at present much to learn and much stiller to learn. Unfortunately by casting off our humanity has only created great errors in the stave of science and the arts as a whole preventing us from truly reaching a level of understanding acceptable enough to create ample progress. Ideally what should be done is create a base of generality and explore in best regards to the pursuit of how all the data coincides or creates fallancies which can recorded but ruled out as theoretical happen stance. As is the state of the mind information is as much by perception as the very reality it is subjected to therefore by which we cannot see maybe seen by another and so on and so forth. By first establishing a base of generality we can understand the basic concept but must persue it as a split from how the patient and the doctor perceive it, from there introduce minimal theraphies which allow the patient the ability to explain to the best of his/her own perspective what happens and have it intepretted back to him (little more concept than teaching a child who already did something as what it is), run on the clinical standards of factual improvement or deterioation , and persue the cause again.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.