I think the main difference is the treatment for these 'disorders'. When people are
diagnosed with a disorder seen as caused by unresolved childhood experiences, a
certain response can be expected. When people are diagnosed with a disorder that
is seen as manifesting itself in chemical 'imbalances' in the brain caused by a
biological abnormality, another response can be expected. This is what has
happened historically with psychiatry, and I can't
see why it should be any different simply because someone suscribes to the social model.
Case in point,
when we were having this debate here a little while ago, the same bio-psychiatric,
"brain disease" argument
was being peddled by a number of people, no different than what you'd here
spoken from your average shrink.
DOQ
On 18 Jan 2005 at 20:52, Andrew Bolger wrote:
> On 18/1/05 7:39 pm, "Jimmy Weber" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Great question! I have asked this question of many people--science,
> > medical, and disability rights people and haven't received a coherent
> > answer yet.
> >
> >
> >
> I guess if sufficient people with depression but without suicidal thoughts
> etc became suicidal after taking prozac that might suggest a link.
> Especially if they were less depressed in other respects.
> The question I would like to ask arose out of a previous thread on mental
> healht issues is: " In the social model what difference, if any, does it
> make if a condition, such as, OCD or schizophrenia is believed to result
> from a brain illness or not?"
>
> Andrew Bolger
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|