From: Paul Caldwell [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:38:08 +0000
Before I start my long reply to this long post, I apologise if it looks
funny: I am doing this on a strange computer in web-based mode (and no
spellchecker).
Fay
>fay i think u r incredibly wrong here and potentially on dangerous ground.
I agree it's not appropriate to characterise everything as a disorder. I am
looking at terms used in mental health and developmental practice and in
any case I woudl have thought it was clear that someone with a conduct
disorder has a disorder of their conduct.
>So when is anything which is negative not a 'disorder' and so a 'health'
problem? What next, 'criminal disorder' which I as a health worker MUST be
resposnible for and 'treat'?
I don't agree with your presumption that anything that is a disorder is
required to be the responsibility of GPs to deal with (or even doctors).
You are falling into the same trap of which you accuse society of making
health and medicine the sole framework into which to fit everything. I
don't agree that all negative characteristics are disoreders.
> The latest bin diagnosis in the States and coming to u in your surgery is
'sociopath' ie adult form of 'conduct disorder'. A sociopath does not
follow normal social norms and causes harm to himself and others by his
behaviour, ie a criminal robbing homes and getting locked-up,
I'm not sure I accept that a "sociopath" is solely the same thing as
someone with a conduct disorder nor that it will be my responsibility to
deal with it.
>Defining anything which is not normal and has negatives as a health
problem has serious implications for society.
We are in wild agreement about this one!
>We as a health profession do society or people no favours by medicalising
social ills and taking responsibility away from those who are sane enough
to know the difference between right and wrong. understanding the origins
and mechanisms of negativebehaviour does not excuse it.
I entirely agree. I sought only to accept and explain but not to excuse or
to encourage the abrogation of responsibility. Surely a medical description
and explanation does not exclude this possibility? I have lots of patients
who are almost entirely responsible for their medical conditions yet I
don't say these are no medical conditions nor that they are not responsible
for their own condition.
Interesting you use the term "social ills" ....
Fay
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
|