Forskning.no (Norway) - ME-sick psychologist: I'm not the type to get ME, I thought

[Hoopoe]

The great work done in Norway on recognition and understanding and empathy for people with mental disorders is not visible in the ME debate. There are still mental explanations taken as insults or reductions of the condition.

It's worth looking at what these mental explanations actually say: they are the accusation of laziness and hysteria in disguise and a form of illness denial (referring to the idea that the illness is perpetuated by deconditioning and beliefs). They are insulting for their content, not because there is some prejudice against mental health. Although, with the way psychiatrists have behaved (disregarding what patients are telling them, publishing misleading junk science) it's not surprising that there are negative attitudes towards psychiatry. Patients have every right to form a negative opinion and feel insulted by this state of affairs, and psychiatry would be wise to listen and learn if it wants to improve its reputation.

 

[petrichor]

It's worth looking at what these mental explanations actually say: they are the accusation of laziness and hysteria in disguise and a form of illness denial (referring to the idea that the illness is perpetuated by deconditioning and beliefs). They are insulting for their content, not because there is some prejudice against mental health.

Yeah, I think much of the tendency towards mental explanations has partially resulted from the fact that many people don't take the illness or patients seriously, which makes them lean much more towards a mental explanation.

When many patients attack mental explanations it's often really an attack on the kinds of attitudes that have lead to those explanations being favoured without sufficient evidence and reason, and on the attitudes or consequences which may underlie those explanations. The fact that mental explanations have been favoured because ME patients haven't been take seriously may indicate something about some of the attitudes towards mental illnesses amongst those who have supported these explanations when they've lacked sufficient evidence.

 

[Cheshire]

The fact that mental explanations have been favoured because ME patients haven't been take seriously may indicate something about some of the attitudes towards mental illnesses amongst those who have supported these explanations when they've lacked sufficient evidence.

Claims like the one made by Wessely about us "refusing the stigma of mental illness" is indeed very telling about his views and his acceptance of a truly unfair reality, maybe even an implicit justification of this stigma.

 

[Esther12]

That piece from the editor was pretty frustrating. It also shows the way in which anything which presents the controversies around CFS as some 'psych vs bio' debate makes it harder to get people to focus on the real problems with the poor quality of key psych research, like PACE. Most people can't be bothered to look carefully at the evidence, and the psych vs bio story makes it so easy for them to present themselves as compassionate and reasonable with vague twaddle about the need to overcome the stigma of MH problems and the value of a holistic biopsychosocial approach.

 

[James Morris-Lent]

A few points for my own edification:

There are still mental explanations taken as insults or reductions of the condition.

Not exactly.
It's something much more noxious than merely 'insulting' when someone presumes to tell you what is going on in your own mind and displays utter contempt for your own account.

Regarding minimizing the condition, I take issue with this on two fronts:
-The treatments and social policy that follow from mental explanations do minimize by suggesting that it can be cured or greatly ameliorated through force of will; sufferers should not be given much support and there is no need for scientific research.
-This is a particularly smarmy instance of virtue-signalling. I.e. 'I take mental illness seriously and don't minimize it, aren't I so enlightened and empathetic?". The flip side of this is that it's a charge of bigotry against those opposed to mental or 'biopsychosocial' explanations. Anybody speciously accused of being a bigot is entitled to getting quite pissed off.

Ultimately it comes down to 'what is actually true?' All of this focusing on 'feelings' and emotions surrounding the issue obfuscates and distracts from what actually matters - the search for answers. That suits BPS because it's conceptions have turned out to be incorrect and substantively void; it only really exists in feelings and 'hopes'. 'Insult' me all you want, I don't much give a damn; all I care about is cold, hard, true answers and your ideological dumpster-fire is blocking the way.

Because if it's the brain that produces chronic fatigue, does it make the pain less real?

Is this translation precise? To conflate mind and brain is incomprehensibly boneheaded but this is at least the second time I've seen this illogic. Shall we give MS patients CBT and Graded Coordination Therapy for their 'very real' but 'brain-produced' muscle weakness and ataxia?
Also, nobody knows what role the brain does play in the condition. Saying that the brain produces chronic fatigue in the condition might turn out to be quite misleading.

 

[Kalliope]

Is this translation precise? To conflate mind and brain is incomprehensibly boneheaded but this is at least the second time I've seen this illogic. Shall we give MS patients CBT and Graded Coordination Therapy for their 'very real' but 'brain-produced' muscle weakness and ataxia?
Also, nobody knows what role the brain does play in the condition. Saying that the brain produces chronic fatigue in the condition might turn out to be quite misleading.

Yup, that's a precise translation. I have a feeling this might be from input by prof. Wyller or another Lightning Process-supporter.

 

[andypants]

Yup, that's a precise translation. I have a feeling this might be from input by prof. Wyller or another Lightning Process-supporter.

Sounds a lot like Wyller. He usually resorts to this mode of rhetoric, trying to make patients seem unreasonable for not supporting _all_ hypotheses.

 

[Inara]

To conflate mind and brain is incomprehensibly boneheaded

It is and it shows someone didn't think and/or understand, but this is nothing new when it comes to psychological words which so often have so many meanings...So, maybe he meant mind when he said brain, for him it's probably interchangeable...Who knows.
Great post btw.

 

[Invisible Woman]

The thing I have never quite understood is how people seem to assume that a mental health label or treatment can never be harmful. Even when incorrect.

If we are to assume that mental health interventions can be effective then this assumes they make a change to the behaviour/thoughts/feelings of the patient. Therefore, if the wrong or an unnecessary intervention is applied to a receptive patient there is the capacity for harm, because you are telling them that their behaviour/thoughts/feelings are inappropriate, even though they may not be.

I've often heard people saying that seeking treatment for a mental health issue should be no different than seeking treatment for a broken leg. If you give someone with a broken leg the wrong advice, plaster and medication you will do them harm. So, too, if you apply inappropriate mental health labels and treatments.

The assumption that mental health interventions are wholly benign is completely false.

 

[James Morris-Lent]

Yup, that's a precise translation. I have a feeling this might be from input by prof. Wyller or another Lightning Process-supporter.

Thanks for clarifying! Ugh.

It is and it shows someone didn't think and/or understand, but this is nothing new when it comes to psychological words which so often have so many meanings...So, maybe he meant mind when he said brain, for him it's probably interchangeable...Who knows.
Great post btw.

Yeah. Well, these types tend to get all righteous whenever somebody dichotomizes 'physical' and 'mental' or whatever. (Yes, of course they're interconnected, we all get that .) Then they go and equate neurological with mental, which is way dumber. Obviously what is actually of concern is mental vs non-mental (or psychogenic vs non-psychogenic) - of course there can be overlap. Everything falls under physical so it's not a useful category, people just mean it as non-mental.
Thanks! Gotta blurt out those thoughts before they vanish forever.

The thing I have never quite understood is how people seem to assume that a mental health label or treatment can never be harmful. Even when incorrect.

Hear, Hear!

 

[Luther Blissett]

The thing I have never quite understood is how people seem to assume that a mental health label or treatment can never be harmful. Even when incorrect.

True, and they very strongly ignore what mental health service users actually say about how they are treated.

It's a fake concern when they pretend to care, It reminds me of people who go around telling people how not racist/sexist etc they are. The kind of people who want public acknowledgment that they are not awful.