Manic Depression is a brain disease in the same category as
Related Topics
"Rich" R...@anon.com
Manic Depression is a brain disease in the same category as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Multiple Sclerosis.
These four diseases have the following in common: 1. The cause is unknown.
2. There is no definitive diagnostic test.
3. They are diagnosed primarily by presentation of symptoms.
4. They respond to medication treatments.
5. They cost society a lot of money.
"Crotalus" Crota...@horridus.com
he is just reposting what Hoosier posted on asdmm a couple weeks ago. I replied then, but my reply was not posted for whatever reason. Perhaps a technical error. Anyway here it is part of it: There are very important differences between these true physical diseases and mental illnesses like bipolar disorder. While the underlying cause may not be known, there is absolutely no debate about any of these others being physical disease. Clearly they all are. Listed below are various physical proofs of the disease process. There are no such proofs with bipolar disorder, as all of the things being reported (and contradicted) could just as easily be, and probably are, effects of psychological origin.
Huntington's disease (which you didnt mention but others often do when making this comparison) is an incurable neurodegenerative condition that has as part of its core pathology a loss of nerve cells deep within the brain.
Neurofibrillary tangles are considered to be a major pathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. Other pathological features seen in AD are neuritic plaques and dystrophic neurites.
Multple Sclerosis: Involves demyelination of nerve fibers.
Parkinsons involves lesions and other abnormalities.
All of the above brain diseases exhibit objective abnormalities that nobody debates are true physical disease. There are no such things in bipolar disorder.
All physical "abnormalities" in the brains of bipolar patients that have been reported have either not been replicated consistently, have been found in normal, healthy people too, have been in people who used psychiatric drugs, or are possible effects of mental activity. There are no proven biochemical aberrations at this time. There simply is no proof, and not much compelling evidence that it is a physical disease in the sense the above diseases are.
here is an article just published this month, reporting that there are no agreed upon structural abnormalities in the brains of bipolar patients using MRI CAT and other: The somatics of psyche: Structural neuromorphometry of bipolar disorder Benabarre, A; Vieta, E; Martinez-Aran, A; Reinares, M; Colom, F; Lomena, F; Martin, F; Valdes, M Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics. Vol 71(4), Jul-Aug 2002, pp.
180-189 Abstract Notes that many neuroimaging investigations report structural differences in Ss with bipolar disorder; however, conflicting results are common in the limited number of available investigations. Thus, the structural correlates of bipolar disorders remain poorly understood. The authors reviewed the early investigations using computed tomography and examined gross structural differences, such as cerebral atrophy, ventricular enlargement, or cerebellar atrophy. Many of these investigations report significant differences in these features compared with controls, whereas others found no such differences. More recent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) investigations have employed increasingly sophisticated imaging and research methodologies, allowing for the quantitative examination of specific brain regions. Because neuropsychological and functional studies suggest abnormalities in frontal, temporal and subcortical regions, many investigators have focused their MRI neuromorphometric studies on these temporal limbic structures.
However, the number of investigations examining each of these regions remains small, and conflicting results continue to be reported.
In other words, there are no structural abnormalities yet known for bipolar disorder.
Could they be found someday? Sure. And maybe they wont. Until they are, science doesnt support such a statement comparing it with known physical diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons.
"Rich" R...@anon.com
Who is TAC?, oh hysterical one.
...
zyster zys...@nomail.com
<in re > I'm not sure I understand: if you don't believe that manic-depression exists, then why are you posting messages to 'alt.support.depression.manic' ?
Zyster the Grim
"Crotalus" Crota...@horridus.com
You are confused. Thats Ok, its not a clearcut issue like some people who have you believe. The truth is simply there is no proof these are biological diseases like the biological diseases mentioned, with biological causes. Not that they dont exist. I certainly have not claimed that.
Claiming that they have not been proven to be physical disease is not the same as saying they dont exist (Thomas Szacz has made that argument and while he makes some very valid points IMO he gets a bit carried away) They do exist IMO, in some way, but what are they? There are different schools of thought on how to view mental illness, and how to treat them, but only one gets much attention. They may well prove to be physical disease with physical causes just like the others, someday, but there are many people who think there is good reason to be wary of that explanation.
Here is a good rundown on some of the other ways to look at and categorize mental illness like depression. Follow the link for the rest of the long article Abstract/Introduction The mental illness of depression is defined in terms of symptoms only, symptoms which by themselves are little more than everyday life experiences but which collectively and when severe can render a person dysfunctional and disabled. These symptoms can be viewed through different lenses leading to different diagnoses and treatments. A strictly medical lens sees a biological malfunction of the brain and pharmaceutical treatment will be recommended. A psychological lens will see the cognitive and emotional mind and typically counselling therapies will be recommended to analyse, comprehend and modify distressing or dysfunctional patterns of behaviour. A psychosocial lens sees the broader social context and considers issues such as poverty, homelessness and community support services. A comprehensive public health policy must embrace all of these dimensions and, to some extent, this is found in both the literature and in public health services.
These symptoms can also be viewed through a spiritual lens which sees the crisis as an opportunity for spiritual growth. Cultures dominated by scientific, materialist values are unable to respond well to spiritual needs.
There is a need for reconciliation between the scientific and the spiritual and although there is much in the philosophical and theological literature on this, it rarely finds its way into public health debates or policy.
http://www.stumacsu.com/secondopsoc/ectsurvivorday/davidwebb.html
"Crotalus" Crota...@horridus.com
Some more info very pertinent to this discussion
--------------------
The linking of schizophrenia to conditions which are generally accepted to be "medical" and biological in basis: the "just as" technique If we wish to present something as being a member of a certain category, then often we compare it to other members of the category in question. For example, consider the case of a primary school teacher who is trying to persuade a group of students that an animal such as an aquatic sponge is, in fact, an animal, despite its unusually plant-like appearance. The teacher would most probably present an argument centered around the fact that just like other animals, such as dogs or cats, sponges consume other living things in order to gain energy, and thus, can be defined as animals. Sponges are thereby constructed as being just as much an animal as cats and dogs are. This same argumentative tool was used by many of the pages to defend their definition of schizophrenia. In this case, the category was biologically-based medical conditions rather than the animal kingdom, and schizophrenia was the point of contention as opposed to sponges. Likewise, the exemplars of medical conditions such as cancer or diabetes replace exemplars of the category of animals, such as cats and dogs.
For our first examples of the use of this argumentative technique, let us examine extracts from the home page of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI).
The first extract is taken from a section of the page which deals with "mental illness" in general. However, as schizophrenia is generally regarded amongst such schools of thought as the prototypical "mental illness," the two constructs can be thought of, for the current purposes, as fairly much synonymous.
Extract 5. (from NAMI: The Nation's Voice on Mental Illness) "What is Mental Illness?
Mental illnesses are disorders of the brain that disrupt a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others. Just as diabetes is a disorder of the pancreas, mental illnesses are brain disorders that often result in a diminished capacity for coping with the ordinary demands of life . . .
. . Most importantly, these brain disorders are treatable. As a diabetic takes insulin, most people with serious mental illness need medication to help control symptoms." In this example, both the cause and treatment of "mental illness" are presented as being just as biological in nature as the causes and treatments of diabetes. The biological basis of diabetes is, after all, widely accepted and undisputed. The impression imparted to the reader is that the scientific knowledge of the biological malfunctioning of the brain, in so-called "schizophrenics," is just as precise and uncontroversial as that ***ociated with diabetes. Furthermore, the preciseness and efficacy of medications used to treat "mental illnesses" is presented as being just as clear cut as the use of insulin to treat diabetics.
Many other examples of the use of what has been coined in this discussion as the "just as" technique were found throughout the pages that were analysed. Let us present some other examples in brief.
Extract 6. (from the NAMI homepage: An interview with novelist Danielle Steel, whose son was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder) "Danielle: . . . I also think people should know how serious it [mental illness] is when it goes untreated . . . If you let a bad cold turn into bronchitis and then pneumonia, without medication, it can kill you. I fyou do not treat serious diabetes, it can kill you.
If mental illness goes untreated it can kill you. People need to know that, so they get the appropriate care." Extract 7. (from schizophrenia.com) "Like cancer and diabetes, schizophrenia has a biological basis" Extract 8. (from schizophrenia.com) "Brain imaging technology has demonstrated that a schizophrenia is a as much an organic brain disorder, as is Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease." All of the examples given share the same argumentative device to place schizophrenia in the category of biologically-based, medical conditions as our fictional primary school teacher used to persuade their students that sponges should be placed in the category of animals. That is, they argue that schizophrenia/mental illness has just as much of a biological base as other conditions which are commonly regarded as biological in basis such as cancer, diabetes or Parkinson's disease. Whether or not this is actually true is a question to which there is no unanimous answer. Certainly, one could argue that the matter is far more beyond doubt than is suggested by the pages examined in the present investigation.
Perhaps the most important point to be taken away from this analysis is that information sources which claim to present "facts" about issues such as schizophrenia (or any other issue for that matter) should never be viewed as categorically correct accounts of the way things are in the world. Any publication must be written by an author, and as such, its construction will always be influenced to some degree by the personal ideology of that particular author in regards to the issue being considered.
http://www.szasz.com/undergraduate/Kurz.htm
zyster zys...@nomail.com
<in re > Do you suppose that there might have been a time when the diseases which you mention as having clear-cut '_physical_' causes might have been thought to be baffling and inexplicable by Modern Science?
Why is it so clearly the case that manic-depression will never be shown to be a neurological disorder in the same vein as epilepsy, previously stigmatized and attributed to 'psychological' causes?
Is it a mere coincidence that every drug currently used in the treatment and prophylaxis of manic-depression other than Li is an anticonvulsant?
Perhaps if you abandoned your 'agenda', descended from the lofty heights of your soapbox, you might find that the psychological explanation for manic-depression is as scientifically insupportable as is psychoanalysis, once considered the treatment of choice for 'mental' illness, and perhaps a prophylactic against the development of 'mental' illness?
Imagine how much those frequent trips to one's 'analyst' must have cost.
When, I beg you, oh when, will the Magnum Opus: ?« Theme and Endless Variations ?» , by Crotalus the Scrivener, come to a resounding and most likely resplendent conclusion?
zyster the grim
zyster zys...@nomail.com
<in re > When will you learn that the frequent reiteration of a thesis doesn't serve to reinforce its validity?
"Crotalus" Crota...@horridus.com
Absolutely. But that doesnt mean the others fall in the same category.
I dont think anyone said it will "never be shown". It hasnt been shown, and there is reason to be skeptical that it will.
Why does lithium work for so many people? Why is Zyban (Wellbutrin), an antidepressant, sold for quitting smoking?
This is ex juvantibus reasoning. While treatments that work can provide a clue, they dont necessarily tell you about the nature of the disease. It could be that a shared non-convulsant actions of these drugs is what gives their effect-as just one possible example.
I think science is woefully inadequate as a tool for learning how to live a life.
as is
"Crotalus" Crota...@horridus.com
I apologize for ***uming that your questions were sincere. I will try not to make that mistake again ...
"Rich" R...@anon.com
Looks like somebody here isn't taking his medicine!
Learn to be nice now!!
-Rich ...
<>...
"Pete" P...@nospam.com
People like you ruin this group.
-Pete ...
<>...
s.l.k ...@worldnet.att.net (Sharen Keim)
I see one big difference between basically all of the cl***ic psychiatric disorders, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc., and these other neurological disorders. These other disorders listed here are pretty typical of the etiology of physical diseases in general.
One of these affects a small fraction of the population, and the other two require a lot of age, a lot of wear and tear on the organism. But the DSM lists condition after condition which show their first signs by young or middle adulthood, all of which in total would make up one huge part of the population. Yet whenever these psychiatric illnesses occur, this is explained by telling us that it's only natural that diseases happen. This certainly doesn't mean that I believe in going without medication in that medication constitutes the "medical model." This just means that medication could be another form of victim correction as a panacea, in that certainly something has to be corrected, and sometimes it has to be the victim only because the victimizer would refuse.
~Sharen
| To Top |