37
   

The Mind of a Sociopath

 
 
Lambchop
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 02:39 pm
This was such an interesting thread. I've never given much thought to how mental health professionals differ in their approach to diagnoses and treatments in this country as compared to other countries.

But I think dlowan is right about there being "trends" here in the US. Ever notice how everyone seems to be bi-polar these days? It seems like everybody and his brother is being diagnosed as bi-polar!

I thought "bi-polar" was just a modern term for maniac depressiveness, but from reading a little more about it, I've learned that it actually includes several other conditions which are similar.

In other words, "bi-polar" is a sort of "umbrella" term. I agree with dlowan that a label in and of itself isn't necessarily bad, especially if it's well-defined. I think the real danger is using labels that are vague and too all-encompassing.

It makes me wonder how many people are being mis-diagnosed, or at the very least, aren't receiving the proper care and treatment. Instead, they're just getting the "bi-polar bandaid" slapped on them.

There should never be a "one-size-fits-all" approach to mental health. Or, as Setanta said, "a flavor of the month mentality."

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 02:53 pm
@JPB,
In many states, yes.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 02:53 pm
@JPB,
It was more of a tongue-in-cheek thing; I'm imagining Facebook and its ilk in 10 years when we all have wearable computers....
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 02:58 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I think a big problem in the United States is that people with absolutely no medical training, and simply a four-year degree in psychology are able to practice as mental health counsellors, including being able to prescribe drugs.

Where exactly is this? I know that a few states are giving scrip privileges to Ph.D.-level psychologists, if they have special pharma training.

Undergraduate degree, graduate degree, internship, licensing exam, minimum one year of work experience with oversight. That's just to get a license to practice. Next comes add'l training in drugs/pharmacology, with an exam at the end of that, and you have to be practicing in the right state.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 02:59 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
In many states, yes.

Which states, exactly?
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 03:02 pm
@DrewDad,
Perhaps you'll recall that i said i wasn't going to play games with you. Perhaps you'll also recall that you admitted to being fooled. If you wish to dispute the point, disprove it.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 03:08 pm
@Setanta,
Ah. In that case, I'll assume you pulled it out of your ass.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 03:13 pm
Assume whatever you like.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 03:14 pm
Here we go.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 03:25 pm
One funny thing about psychopathy which nobody has noted yet....

Unlike every other sort of recognized mental illness, being a psychopath does NOT impair somebody's ability to perceive the world around themselves, and has therefore never yet been considered to be any sort of an excuse for committing crimes.


0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 03:27 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I think a big problem in the United States is that people with absolutely no medical training, and simply a four-year degree in psychology are able to practice as mental health counsellors, including being able to prescribe drugs.


Yeah...we've discussed this before, and, while I cannot comment re how this works in the US (here, only people with a medical doctor qualification can prescribe), I think you quite wrong if you are thinking that doctors are immune to the blandishments of drug companies. The whole system is a disgrace, and a lot of doctors act like kids at a toyshop at conferences where the latest drugs are being pushed. Also, as I said before, I would trust a well-qualified psychologist FAR more than I would trust GPs and paediatricians in properly assessing for mental health problems.


I also find paediatricians and GPs far more susceptible to "flavour of the month" trash psychological diagnoses than proper mental health professionals are.

But...as I said, I do not know how the system works in the US.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 03:47 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Also, as I said before, I would trust a well-qualified psychologist FAR more than I would trust GPs and paediatricians in properly assessing for mental health problems.

Definitely. Even psychiatrists, while better than GPs, do not have the same level of training in mental health as most psychologists.

One of the difficulties in this, however, is defining our terms. Lots of folks practice in the mental health field, but aren't psychologists. Social workers, for example. Not to mention "Dr. Laura"; her degree is in kinesiology. Rolling Eyes
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 03:50 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
. . . I think you quite wrong if you are thinking that doctors are immune to the blandishments of drug companies.


I was definitely not saying that. The deplorable situations which i encountered in the army medical corps arose with doctors and clinical specialists, one of whom once commented that a particular drug was "psychiatric glue." The patient who was under discussion at that time took an M16 rifle a couple of weeks later, and, sucking on the barrel, blew his own head off. In the army, of course, medical care is expected to return patients to duty, and higher authority is not interested in being told that this or that soldier should not be returned to duty. The drug industry gave doctors and clinical specialists a great deal of relief, because it appeared that they provided a way for them to return soldiers to duty, without being obliged to worry about those pesky mental problems which previously had made them dubious about the prospect.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 03:54 pm
@JPB,
To go a little further with this, i started a state by state search, and i immediately found something interesting in an article from the Anchorage (Alaska) Daily News:

Quote:
In Alaska, psychologists cannot prescribe medications, unlike psychiatrists and psychiatric nurse practitioners. Craig said a couple of states, however, do allow psychologists with proper training to prescribe drugs.


As i have the time, i'll try to find out which states those were. I happen to know that psychologists in a state in which i lived were able to prescribe, as i was taking counselling and was rather casually offered prescription drugs when what i wanted was to stop with the booze. I declined, as it appeared to me that i would just be trading one drug escape for another.

I'll see what i can come up with.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 04:04 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Definitely. Even psychiatrists, while better than GPs, do not have the same level of training in mental health as most psychologists.


Really? It's totally different here. (Normal medical school, degree and than additionally five years in schooling hospital for psychiatry.)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 04:09 pm
Well, JPB, i wasn't gonna put a lot of time in this today, but did a little more looking around, and when looking for info on Alabama (you know, Alaska, Alabama, etc.), i found this page from the National Alliance on Mental Illness:

Prescription Privileges for Psychologists: An Overview

And near the beginning of the article, this jumped out at me:

Quote:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia authorize nurse practitioners or other advance practice nursing professionals to prescribe medications, including psychiatric medications, with certain conditions.


It is entirely possible, of course, that the instances to which i referred were of nurse practitioners working as mental health counsellors, or that these were instances of a mental health worker who prescribed with the assistance of a physician with whom they were affiliated.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 04:22 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
In the army, of course, medical care is expected to return patients to duty, and higher authority is not interested in being told that this or that soldier should not be returned to duty. The drug industry gave doctors and clinical specialists a great deal of relief, because it appeared that they provided a way for them to return soldiers to duty, without being obliged to worry about those pesky mental problems which previously had made them dubious about the prospect.


These must be the ones who truly care for the front line troops. These are the types of officers that happily line up behind scum like Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 04:41 pm
@Setanta,
Yeah, I find my time getting captured by interesting topics too. Thanks for the research -- disturbing to be sure. I very much agree with Deb's statement of psychologists over GPs and pediatricians.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 05:52 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Definitely. Even psychiatrists, while better than GPs, do not have the same level of training in mental health as most psychologists.


Really? It's totally different here. (Normal medical school, degree and than additionally five years in schooling hospital for psychiatry.)


Yeah...same here..with additional training for child psychiatrists.

But...like every profession, quality sure as hell varies.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 05:56 pm
I'm not certain that it is appropriate to assume that a psychologist is better qualified than a psychiatrist in the United States. I don't think that that is something which differs from here to Dutchland or Oz.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 10:26:15