Same old garbage, and as is clearly fashionable, summoning "The neuroscience" as an explanation. Based on nothing at all. There is nothing from modern neuroscience that explains any of this. Absolutely empty of any real arguments. As is tradition. And yet most of the article explicitly frames everything under "predictive processing". Although it's correct that usually it's not one explanation, rather it's literally any explanation that appears to convince some patients of something vague and generic. But regardless of which particular explanation is chosen in any given moment or context by one person or another, there is one underlying model: the undying belief in "psychosocial" causes, and that is the one explanation they always vaguely fall back to. Just empty bleating that has not budged one single bit from what their predecessors were bleating a century ago.
If no one stops them, is it really a breach? Absolutely, but not only will no one stop them, they will be encouraged to do this, and every part of the system will defend and promote it as good. And this is basically like the old joke about a hero behaving like a deranged drunk, harassing people left and right and being criticized for "not behaving like a hero". Except by definition if a hero behaves like that, it is the behavior of a hero. The problem with circular credibility.
Podcast episode by SFAM about functional disorders, in Swedish. Carl Sjöström om funktionella tillstånd https://share.transistor.fm/s/a6793d47 ("SFAM, the Swedish Association of General Practice, is the professional and scientific college of general practitioners (family physicians) in Sweden, a non-profit organisation with about 2000 members. SFAM is affiliated to the Swedish Society of Medicine (Svenska Läkaresällskapet) as well as the Swedish Medical Association (Läkarförbundet). Main areas of interest for SFAM are continuing professional development, training of future GPs, assessment of competence, quality improvement and research in general practice/family medicine.")
Vogt (former leader of Recovery Norge) has written an opinion piece about cosmetic surgeries without medical justification. He argues that it’s wrong that private actors can profit on surgeries that carries a risk while the government pays for any negative consequences. Maybe he could apply the same critical thinking to his other endeavours?
