Pass the soma

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,887
Location
'Stralia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...id=opinionsbox1

Quote:
Peter De Vries, America's wittiest novelist, died 17 years ago, but his discernment of this country's cultural foibles still amazes. In a 1983 novel, he spotted the tendency of America's therapeutic culture to medicalize character flaws:
.
.
.
Life is about to imitate De Vries's literature, again.
.
.
.
Today's DSM defines "oppositional defiant disorder" as a pattern of "negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures." Symptoms include "often loses temper," "often deliberately annoys people" or "is often touchy." DSM omits this symptom: "is a teenager."

This DSM defines as "personality disorders" attributes that once were considered character flaws. "Antisocial personality disorder" is "a pervasive pattern of disregard for . . . the rights of others . . . callous, cynical . . . an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal." "Histrionic personality disorder" is "excessive emotionality and attention-seeking." "Narcissistic personality disorder" involves "grandiosity, need for admiration . . . boastful and pretentious." And so on.

If every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a "disorder" akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory. Under federal law, "disabilities" include any "mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities"; "mental impairments" include "emotional or mental illness." So there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk. (See above, "antisocial personality disorder.")


This is getting well and truly beyond silly.

Interesting the legal implications of bearing a disability, and the burden of guilt...versus the right of "the man" to force medication on the "afflicted".
 
"Antisocial personality disorder" is "a pervasive pattern of disregard for . . . the rights of others . . . callous, cynical . . . an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal."

Is it still a "disorder" when it is a prerequisite for becoming a corporate CEO?
lol.gif
 
You guys are getting at something very important: the things we call "disorders" are really just extreme versions of normal human traits. It's not like the flu, which either you have or you don't. There is a continuum. Any line we draw between "sane" and "insane" is totally arbitrary. Oppositional defiant disorder IS being a teenager, only a lot worse. Antisocial personality disorder IS being a jerk, only a lot worse.

That's why the one criterion that the DSM lists for every disorder is that it must substantially interfere with a person's life in some way, like the quotation from federal law above. That is an intentionally vague statement because there is no clear way to draw the line.

This doesn't mean that "every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a 'disorder.'" It's just as likely to mean the opposite: If you can cope with it in your day-to-day life, it could be very real but you're not going to get help for it. No one is going to give you medication for hearing voices and seeing pretty lights if you can't show that it's wrecking your life. Similarly, as river_rat was getting at, many "abnormal" folks have found niches in society where their dysfunctions are advantageous. You can be fairly sure no one will be medicating them any time soon.

As with any arbitrary distinction, there is a balance to be found, and the optimal balance may move with the times. The only sure thing is that we will never find it.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
It's not like the flu, which either you have or you don't. There is a continuum.

And the people said Amen!
01.gif
 
The more things that can be considered medical diseases, the more that can be 'treated' and drugged.
This = more $ for those empowered to designate these things..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top