UK Times:'What if the thing that’s making you physically ill is your mind?', Feb 2020, Rumbelow [includes ME]

They say a third of GP visits are due to conversion disorder (AKA somatization), even though they discourage the term psychosomatic. Where is their evidence for this? They are saying anything that's unexplained must be in the mind. This is not a rational belief, it's based on faith not evidence.

How can so many medical professionals fall for this?
 
It took me probably over half a dozen visits over a year or 3, at least 3 of which involved a hospital blood test, to get a simple diagnosis of type 2 diabetes - and even then I had to do buy my own BG test meter and take it and do a test in the surgery in front of her before she would do a test using hers.

At no point prior to this had she bothered - it was just either send me for a blood test (with no mention that it was supposed to be a morning fasted test) or tell me that it had already been tested so I didn't have diabetes, even though I stank of it.

All those previous visits would have been 'unexplained'.

When it was finally 'diagnosed' my BG level was over 25 mmol on a good day, on a bad day it was unreadable by the meter (i.e. off the scale).

The whole 'unexplained' thing assumes that the GP is actually competent.
 
Modern medicine has only been around about 100 years. How can they be so arrogant as to think all diseases have been discovered making it possible to rule out physical causes?

What about the 100's if not 1000's of conditions we are yet to discover? What about in a 100 years time or even a 1000 years time when so many currently unexplained disease will be discovered?
 
How can they be so arrogant as to think all diseases have been discovered making it possible to rule out physical causes?

Agreed. I would also love to know how they can be so blind or stupid not to see that colluding with this crap will ultimately lead to the perception that fewer GPs are needed, rather than simply taking some burden off busy GPs. Many of the young GPs starting out might find their job disappears in the coming decades. Replaced by someone with a few weeks training.

Edit - typo. But while I'm here - ditto for clinical psychologists - they'll ultimately be replaced too. They won't even be needed to train the barely trained IAPT personnel because the existing ones will train the new ones.
 
They say a third of GP visits are due to conversion disorder (AKA somatization), even though they discourage the term psychosomatic. Where is their evidence for this? They are saying anything that's unexplained must be in the mind. This is not a rational belief, it's based on faith not evidence.

How can so many medical professionals fall for this?
It could be motivated reasoning; if you want to believe something, you'll find or accept reasons to believe it.
Or we could go with the same quality of logic used with regard to the notion of "30% somaticization": Those who propound this position are clearly practicing witchcraft, and their disciples are making 1/3 of the patients sick to satisfy their evil master. They are instructed to handle the other 2/3rds normally to provide cover. Prove it wrong ;-).
 
Anthony David is co-author of this from 2017, my bolding.
The Lancet Psychiatry Series on Women's Mental Health is a timely reminder of the importance of sex and gender in psychiatry. Although this Series could not address all disorders disproportionately affecting women, the omission of the disorder classically attributed to the uterus, functional neurological disorder, reflects a more general blind spot within psychiatry for this disorder, which remains under-researched, despite being common and highly disabling.1

Patients with functional neurological disorder present with neurological symptoms inconsistent or incongruent with typical pathophysiological disease; they are presumed to be psychological in origin. Although hysteria was once deemed, infamously, to be an exclusively female disorder, its women-to-men sex ratio is approximately 2–3:1.1 Conversion disorder became the prominent term, reflecting Sigmund Freud's theory that psychological traumas are converted into physical symptoms. Functional neurological disorder became an official term in DSM-5 and is becoming dominant as a result of patient preference, with widespread use in online support groups.
2 This nomenclature is causally neutral, and this is reflected in the DSM-5 classification, which no longer requires a psychological precipitant as an essential diagnostic criterion—an important development.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(17)30036-6/fulltext

Also co-author of this editorial from 2010 in the BMJ
Defeatism among clinicians is undermining evidence that it can be treated

The recent acquittal of Kay Gilderdale, who had been charged with the attempted murder of her 31 year old daughter Lynn, has led to blanket press coverage this week. She was given a one year suspended sentence for the lesser charge of aiding and abetting suicide, to which she had earlier entered a guilty plea. The debate in the media has focused on the rights and wrongs of assisted suicide, the wisdom of bringing a prosecution for attempted murder, and whether the law needs to be changed.

Yet perhaps the most striking aspect of the case from the clinician’s point of view is the largely uncontested media portrayal of a condition referred to as chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (now commonly if unsatisfactorily called CFS/ME) as a progressive, paralysing, and commonly fatal illness. Little has been said in the media about the uncertainties and controversies that this diagnosis has always attracted. The details of the Gilderdale case and the coroner’s inquest and postmortem are not available to us, so it would be inappropriate to comment on this specific case, and as in any criminal...
Paywall, https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c738.full
Sci hub, https://sci-hub.se/10.1136/bmj.c738

And co-author with Simon Wessely of this letter to the Lancet from 1996.
We were dismayed to read your editorial about the report on CFS by the three Royal Medical Colleges. We wish to respond as individuals (and not as spokesmen for the Royal Colleges concerned). We do this since The Lancet is critical of the constitution of the committee, on which we served, by the mere fact that we are psychiatrists, who you claim were there because “it was rigged”. Instead, as stated in the report's introduction, we were asked to take part because we are clinicians with first-hand knowledge of CFS and have contributed to research in this field (including in the pages of The Lancet).
Paywall, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)65451-7/fulltext
Sci hub, https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)65451-7

Above are simply examples of his published views on FND and ME, not a complete list.
 
From what I remember going through various googles over time this gent was actually part of the small collective (inc Wessely) from the early days, seems right in there, and hasn't been as quiet and out of it as we might think - more one of the more subtle with his profile (my gut says because he was thinking along the lines of the new FND angle to take whilst Sharpe/Wessely etc were spending a loud few years going to the newspapers claiming patients were trolling them etc.

Although this from 1993 - in the BMJ (Vol. 307, Issue 6905 title 'wide-eyed and legless') doing something similar-sounding in response to a screenplay on someone with ME (he mentions the 'rumour' of the incident where the boy with ME was thrown into a swimming pool) - well..: https://www.bmj.com/content/307/6905/688

He was one of the authors on "The Legend Of Camelford : Medical Consequences Of A Water Pollution Accident": https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-45677-001


and was part of the 1998 working group in the following: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP98-107/RP98-107.pdf

was co-author on the following 2009 paper on chronic fatigue in primary care attenders: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...re-attenders/3EC02BD72C28B4CB4F09EA471EA4969B
 
What if the thing that’s making you physically ill is your mind?

What if it isn't, but doctors insist that it is?

What would be the consequences of that?


just reminds me of the naughty using of the phrase 'what if' - basically the science or political equivalent of a caveat/load of smallprint saying you aren't responsible for your own assertions.

But you are correct - this question alone, including your part, should very much be the one that anyone claiming to be 'for the patients' is able to answer, properly. Not pretend intentions, or using the defensive distraction of pretending that calling out something that is done which causes harm is someone inferring intentions but basic pathwaying of what is going on. To however many conditions or people with conditions not yet with a name but certainly with a need (that might be defined as certain skillsets/research) this issue stretches to.

perhaps we should point those in charge of funding and education towards the following types of pages that most sectors/industries would use:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...analysis-22bffa5f-e891-4acc-bf7a-e4645c446fb4

before heading to newspaper articles.

Or at least simple risk-impact analyses

Might be complicated by the fact it would require the different department of entry to be used in the pathway chart - and their different approaches - but I think this sort of thing, and the long-term costs from getting it wrong (not just in short term money/budget etc) could do with being charted out by things associated with the APPG etc along with who gets what money and how money when you loop to certain defaults.

Is this not more accurate than assuming this based on whichever storytelling versions get put into books or articles?
 
Back
Top Bottom