{Note to mods: If you think this would be better served in another forum, please feel free to move it}
Are chemical imbalances causing things such as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, and anxiety disorders really accepted medically, or has society’s lack of willingness to take responsibility for its own actions just providing a convenient scapegoat?
These conditions can be caused by brain dysfunction (chemical imbalances or injury), environment, and/or heredity. Or any combination of those. There can definitely be a hereditary component to ADD and bipolar disorders. There is quite a lot of literature out there on these conditions. I have heard that Obsessive/Compulsive disorder is being effectively treated by antidepressants now, but I don’t know much about that.
::resists impulse to thump the OP::
Why do you ask? Why would anyone even consider that OCD and ADHD are a result of lack of personal responsibility? ARRRRGHHHHH!
Yes they are medically accepted. Yes drug treatment helps some sufferers - most psychs FI won’t work with an unmedicated OCD sufferer because behaviour modification doesn’t work when the anxiety is high so you medicate to bring the anxiety down and then challenge with the OCD provoking stuff.
ADHD is a more grey area - it does exist but it does seem to be overdiagnosed and overmedicated. Even so if you have a kid who appears ADHD but doesn’t meet the criteria, you still need to examine why the kid seems to have symptoms and fix the environment.
Jill, the SSRI’s absolutely rock when it comes to OCD. It’s night and day with my son when he is on and off Zoloft. I can’t imagine what life would be like if these treatments were not available.
OCD also is seen as one of the symptoms of autism BTW
Don’t misunderstand me. I realize that it may seem a stupid question, but there’s a logical (if somewhat skewed) reason for asking it. I have been diagnosed with OCD, chronic depression, and an anxiety disorder myself. I discussed this with my mother shortly thereafter. My mother’s a nurse, and we tend to talk about such things when I go visit her. She, of course, cannot conceive of me suffering from these maladies. To do so would be to admit that something that came from her is less than perfect.
Hey, me too! Have you always had these symptoms? I know I have always been compulsively organized, to the point of being distracted by it. I’ve always had anxiety and panic symptoms before I knew what they were. My father’s side of the family is similar in compulsions, and my mom’s in anxiety and depression. My father is like your mom in that he denies any problems and suppresses all this, and that doesn’t really help because it will manifest itself somehow.
My point is that I’ve had these things as long as I can remember, and if I were responsible for them I would change them. Instead, all you can do is get help; for me, SSRIs have worked great and made me much happier. OK, maybe not happy, but less unhappy.
This is all opinion, but searching on “OCD chemical imbalance” will give you a lot of facts.
Good luck!
This is a can of worms- mixing psychiatry with morality, chemistry and philosophy of the will.
OCD is (as most other ‘mental illnesses’ are) a social construct defined by psychiatrists and psychologists etc… It only exists as a diagnosis because the experts claim it to be so.
Individuals experience internal events that are expressed in external behaviour. There may be some element of wilful control or wilful lack of control over these expressions.
Some chemicals may make such expressions more or less likely.
There is no empirical test for the existence of such disorders; one is thrown back into a negotiation between the professional, the experiencer and society.
Many people who suffer the experience that may be labeled OCD will never be so diagnosed. Others who may not experience such internal events will nevertheless be diagnosed. Such is the skewed construction of such ‘illness’ constructs.
Many claims are made, but few incontrovertible facts are in existence.
I don’t see what society has to do with OCD…but I do see what the folks have to do with OCD & other things like it that effect serotonins.
Whether the environment that the folks give a child has any effect on the kid having OCD later is disputed, usually by people who don’t have OCD.
[[Many claims are made, but few incontrovertible facts are in existence.]] Except for the fact - shown in case/control studies - that the medications work very well in some people.
This is arguably the stupidest response on the board in the new millennium–or perhaps a lame gag. I’m guessing the former and thus feel compelled to challenge it, yet the entire post is so fundmamentally flawed in logic, lacking in clinical experience, and bereft of good common sense that I’m not sure where to begin.
Please provide credible cites/answers re:
That’s not surprising considering that most people don’t have OCD.
If you are in any way attempting to say that parents create OCD in their kids, I’d like to see you back that up with some cites and research. I’m a parent of a kid with OCD (and parent to two without OCD) and I’d be real interested in learning how not to create the OCD :roll eyes:
My credentials are a quarter century practicing, teaching and researching in mental health. I am a registered nurse specialising in psychiatric problems. I have worked on in-patient units and in the community, managing services for the severely challenged and providing emergency psychiatric services for people in the community. I teach both in the school of nursing and within other disciplines within the local university.
I do not deny the existence of mental illness, but feel the need to challenge its reification into an illness characterized by the normal adjuncts of physical illness. I come from a stream of psychiatry known as social psychiatry which sees mental illness as being greatly determined by social and individual factors. Whilst I do not deny that there is a level at which mental illness may be defined by brain chemical imbalances, this is not the sole level at which it may be described. There is a lazy acceptance in the general population and in much of the medical profession that such a level is the only one to be addressed. This is assisted by the research protocols paid for by pharmaceutical companies that ensure that most (expensive) research in psychiatry is aimed at drug promotion and the medical model of mental illness. However, I do not deny that medication is effective in many cases; however, history teaches us that in the past, many medications which are now seen as mere soporifics or non-specific neuro-transmitter effectors (and are now seen as not clinically useful- henbane, hellebores, reserpine, LSD, and increasingly today the early neuroleptics) were in their time seen as symptom specific. Despite all of this, I do not recommend against medical treatment where it is clinically the least damaging intervention available, but I am skeptical about its validity and efficacy in terms stated by medical model protagonists
I am a believer in ‘soft’ social construction of mental illness. I do not believe that psychiatry creates mental illness, which is believed by ‘hard’ social constructionists. Social construction suggests that illness constructs are created when attempts are made to reify psychological events (that are ill-constructed poorly understood and under-researched) into medical categories of the bodily kind. Non of this denies the experience of the persons undergoing these events, but it does question their inclusion in the category of hard illness.
‘Will’ is extremely difficult to define. The Philosophy of Action considers this in detail and without firm conclusion. Its roots are in the Philosophy of mind and the brain/mind split in western philosophy. I remain unconvinced about common or garden definitions of ‘will’ prevalent in much of society and see ‘responsibility’ (a companion of ‘will’) as flawed and socially constructed.
As far as the questions of ‘empirical tests’, ‘incidence of false diagnoses’, ‘incidence of missed diagnoses’, and ‘incontrovertible facts’, all of these are covered by the concept of social construction. The word ‘diagnosis’ should always bring to mind the questions ‘By whom?’, ‘By which criteria?’, and ‘Within which cultural and political setting?’ Similarly, the possibility of empirical tests and incontrovertible facts are extremely difficult (in fact, unlikely) in soft sciences such as psychiatry.
My null hypothesis is that mental illness is not an event like a broken leg or cancer; it is generally socially defined and not open to an easy physiological explanation. I then seek to find areas in which physical or other interventions are shown to be effective. This is a morally and scientifically valid perspective.
The null hypothesis of mainstream psychiatry has gradually become: ‘mental illness is an illness like any other’, and then with the willing collusion of the pharmaceutical industry, seeks not to destroy its null hypothesis, but to seek confirmatory data in support of it. This is not morally nor scientifically valid.
References are available from many sources for such an approach to mental illness, but will be found in the annals of social psychology, philosophy and sociology, but not generally in those of medicine and psychiatry. A starting point would be the works of Szasz and Laing (with which I do not agree, but which do provide evidence of the possibility of a critique of medical model psychiatry). The work of Peter Breggin is also worth looking at (again, whilst not agreeing with his stance, it does offer a critique). Less academic, but more compelling, is the work of many psychiatric survivor groups which detail the effects of treating ‘mentally ill people’ as objects rather than agents.
I do object to your statement ‘This is arguably the stupidest response on the board in the new millennium–or perhaps a lame gag.’ which whilst probably more appropriate to the Pit, adequately demonstrates not a problem with my post, but a problem with your reaction to it. There is more than one potentially valid description of human mental experience; medical model psychiatrists do not have all the right answers, they have merely created an unwarranted hegemony over this area of human suffering.
I do wonder what your experience of these matters is. Mine has been gained as a professional and latterly as a service recipient (for a depressive incident due to stress), and I do feel somewhat qualified to talk about these matters without it being seen as stupid or a gag.
QUOTE: A starting point would be the works of Szasz and Laing (with which I do not agree, but which do provide evidence of the possibility of a critique of medical model psychiatry).
Szasz? Say no more. He is no starting point, but rather an ending point.
P.S. Whilst?
Your reply implies that you do not wish to respond to the issues raised and that you have nothing to add to the argument between biological and psychological approaches to ‘mental health problems’.
I took time to respond to your requests for expansion on my original post, but you have only flippant and moderately insulting replies.
I don’t suppose that we shall generate any light from this exchange, but perhaps I should ask you the following questions:
1/ How do you define Mental Illness?
2/ Where is the evidence that ‘mental illness’ is based on brain malfunction alone?
3/ What part do you think that social interpretation plays in determining ‘mental illness’ states?
4/ What part do you think that social conditioning and experience have in causing ‘mental illness’ states?
5/ Where do you place the differentiating marker between willed and unwilled actions?
6/ Do you accept any other model other than the Medical Model of ‘mental illness’?
7/ detail your clinical training, experience, and credentials.
Also, a reasoned response to my reply above would assist.
I hope that the Original Poster will get (from my response to your questions, and your response to mine) some idea of the wide differences in approach available to people labeled OCD or ADHD etc.
However, it may be necessary for this discussion to move to Great Debates, or even the Pit ;). Perhaps you should check out the recently bumped item on Schizophrenia in General Questions- that might irritate you as well:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=4140
And, BTW, you will find ‘whilst’ even in Websters, although it is marked ‘mostly British’.
Primaflora, come visit sometime, I can introduce you to some people who think that OCD was caused by how their folks raised them.
Let’s see here … instead of coherent refutation, what I see is backpedalling, strawman arguments, academic posturing, and industrial-strength bullshitting. Not impressive.
Do you really believe that “maintsteam psychiatry” regards mental illness as easily defined? Whoever said there aren’t contributing factors of causation? Where is your evidence that “mainstream psychiatry” (whatever that means) sees mental illness as no different than a physical illness such as a “broken leg”? Why do you demand incontrovertible evidence from mainstream psychiatrists, yet later admit such evidence would be nearly impossible to provide–and then yourself provide nothing of the sort? Is everyone who prescribes psychotrophic meds part of the “hegemony”? How so? You challenge the track record of the modern medical model (again, very broad), yet what better approach do you, Szasz, et al. offer to real-world presenting problems?
Let’s keep things real. To bottomline it: please demonstrate the efficacy of present-day “social psychology, philosophy and sociology” in treating OCD or severe anxiety.
I note that you still engage in behaviour more suitable for Great Debates or The Pit, and are yet to address any of the points that I put to you above.
Mainstream psychiatry gave birth to DSM IV which claims to comprehensively define all of psychiatry. It is written mainly from a medical model approach.
My position is simply that ‘mental illness’ is extremely difficult to define, and that there is a tendency to define it in such a way that medication and control by others is the only possible outcome. My position does not deny that some medications and some controlling reactions work and may be necessary.
And BTW try:
http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/OCD/Site/Transcripts/ocd_treatment.htm
for a discussion of OCD and Cognitive Behavior Therapy- the preferred approach for working with OCD and initially with ADHD. A Google search for (CBT and OCD) and (CBT and ADHD) results in many more references. No psychiatric system that I have known or worked in (in the last ten years since CBT was recommended for OCD) would intervene with supposedly ‘curative’ medication for OCD or ADHD without first attempting to understand the problem in its own social environment and maybe using cognitive techniques to try to return the control of the symptoms to the person experiencing them.
I have reviewed your posts in vain for any cites or other supporting evidence other than your own strongly held and emotionally defended beliefs.
Thank you all for not resorting to insults, while disagreeing on the issue. I think this thread would be better continued in Great Debates.
Pjen, let’s agree to disagree and move on. I’m on my way out to go sailing and don’t need negative vibes bringing me down. Effective treatment often requires meds and CBT/talk therapy/etc. Have a nice day.
Funny you should mention it. This is the reason why I think it is a chemical imbalance. OCD, depression, anxiety, and panic attacks all seem to fit under the same catagorey. Makes sense that they can all be treated with the same drug then (in most cases) and this facts leads me to believe that it is a chemical imbalance.
I had OCD for about 3 years and I still have some anxiety issues, little depression and almost no hypochondria. And I can’t even remember the last time I’ve had a panic attack. I attribute alot of my success to zoloft.
It has made a big difference in my level of anxiety.
The really good news is is that I was able to get minimize the OCD without medication (BZ, or before zoloft). After alot of research I found out that OCD is caused by a lack of seritonin in the brain. When you don’t do your little “habits”, you release some of that seritonin into your brain. It’s like your curing yourself The more seritonin, the less the urges to do your “habits.” This took almost a year to do on my own, but I’m much happier now. However, I didn’t get rid of my OCD completly, I still have a few little “habits” that I have to go through daily, but they don’t interfear with my life, and that’s good enough for me.
Keep in mind though, everybody has their own little quirks about them. Don’t chalk it up to OCD yet. I’m not a doctor but after going through it, I can tell you that having OCD means you have either 1 really really strong impulse (the washing the hands for hours on end) or, like me, lots of little tiny annoying habits that you just have to do everyday. I’m not talking like 5, but more like 50-100. Furthermore, sometimes you’ll have your urges linked with another unrelated event. For example:
“If I don’t wear this shirt today, I’m going to fail my test.”
or (I had some similar to this)
IMPULSE: I have to wear this shingaurd on the left and this one on the right, put on my shindgaurds, then my socks, cleats, then tape the bottom of my shinguards, the top, then my cleats. Or else I’m going to have a bad game.
My anxiety is what seemed to do me in. I started having panic attacks at work and was filled with anxiety. I started worrying about having more panic attacks. That’s when I saw a doctor and they prescribed zoloft for me. Worked like a charm and lessened my depression and anxiety.
Don’t worry about your mother either. I hid my OCD (not easy!) and I’ve always been a hypochondriac and had anxiety issues. Like, at 5 and 6 years old. So I doubt my parents had much influence on me. I’m confident that everything will turn out ok for you. Good luck!