Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Psychiatrists say that being angry is a mental illness

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by patmac
 


if this is exactly as the source says then it is going far...
but these things mentioned in the article are all indications or symptoms of established mental illnesses...
regarding "too much internet"--addiction...which doesn't have to be to drugs...
anger, intermittent anger out-of-proportion to the situation is a common symptom of many DSM-IV diagnosable illnesses or disorders...

and so goes for all the rest...

to single someone who is especially lazy out on that single trait is just silly as we all have faults of personality and such...when these things become mental illness needing of treatment they must become so predominant that they somewhat take over a part (or all) of a persons normal life...




posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by patmac
 


This article grossly misrepresents the DSM. If any of you have ever picked up the DSM you would know that one symptom most disorders share is that it must be profound enough to impede normal functioning. Otherwise, why would you be seeing a psychologist/psychiatrist? Second, off the DSM does not recommend treatment It is up to the therapist to be up to date on the current research and to prescribe the treatment that works best in similar cases. No psychiatrist is going to label someone as mentally ill for being angry, however if it is an anger that is persistent and affects your relationship with others and ability to function in a normal capacity, then it is a mental illness. It becomes clearer and clearer as more topics like this are made that few people on here actually have any grasp on the reality of the mental health field.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I gotta admit there are quite a few "angry" personalities out there, that does make me think maybe they are crazy.

But then again I know I'm crazy lol.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by patmac
 


Essentially all mental disorders have a social and a biological cause. It just becomes hard to determine which is the one that originally initiates the problem. An experience can cause a change in the brain, thus affecting its chemistry. This is a very basic definition of neuroplasticity. On the other hand a person's brain may be wired in such a way so they overreact to a certain situation thus causing a mutated gene to turn on, causing a chemical imbalance. Either way, psychotherapy and medication is effective in most mental illnesses, and usually both are as effective. Of course the cases where this is not true is with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In these cases the only real treatment is medication, and even then it might not work, especially in the case of schizophrenia.

It's really appalling how little people seem to know on these subjects. Instead they prefer to claim that these meds are an insidious plot to control the population, yet this disregards the mountains of studies that show that they work. That's a fact and any mental health professional will attest to that. The problem is that everyone is different so while one treatment may work for one person it might not work for another.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by patmac
 

Yeah everybody has a diagnosis...

I would be more inclined to accept the premise if the psychiatrists who compile these diagnoses were themselves particularly able people, who performed well because of their superior mental health in a wide range of human endeavors...in my experience such is not the case...psychiatrists are in general an unimpressive group of people...and the most messed-up kids in the world, proverbially, are the children of psychiatrists, ain't that the truth.



[edit on 9-4-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by patmac
 

Im glad at least someone read what I said. If everyone else did theyd realise the article makes a mountain out of a molehill and completely distorts the obvious truth for whatever their agenda may be. The TITLE is 'being angry is a mental illness' what BULL#, see thats called SELECTIVE INFORMATION. By identifying this tactic it should be ringing alarm bells they have a negative motive. I guess you could also call it oversimplification. Both psychological warfare techniques.

NO ONE says a pill can cure these obsessions!!!!! (well, maybe pill manufacturers) but NOT psychologists. You do know there is behaviour and psychoanalytic therapy, among others, and biological is usually the LAST resort?

I AGREE with you it is not always so negative as to be a disorder!! Thats the WHOLE POINT OF THE DSM. Anyone with a basic knowledge of it knows - there are often perfect explanations for behaviour that make it 'normal'. More often than not there is some one saying 'I think my son has depression' well YEAH, his gf dumped him, what you expect?!

The entire point Im trying to get across is, disorder means it is PERVASIVE and HAS to negatively impair the persons functioning normally in society - for example, if the person is depressed for no explainable cause, or a person got dumped by their gf but is still moping about it 2 years later, to the point they shunned all their friends and lost their job - YES that is a disorder.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 

Im so glad theres a another rational person in here - everyone else just reacted emotionally which is what the article wanted them to.

The whole point in their wording, title especially, was to elicit negative emotion, make them think the psychologists are retarded and just trying to bolster pill sales, and then look at all the ads for their crap along the side.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Is it not true that doctors and psychiatrists are granted a dividend for prescribing various drugs and meds to their patients? I've heard that before, but can't say I've delved into the matter much. It's not to say that conscientious doctors would, but it opens the door to temptation if so. Maybe there is something to in-doct-rination through the system!



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
Is it not true that doctors and psychiatrists are granted a dividend for prescribing various drugs and meds to their patients? I've heard that before, but can't say I've delved into the matter much. It's not to say that conscientious doctors would, but it opens the door to temptation if so. Maybe there is something to in-doct-rination through the system!


ooooh yes, check out this piece from The New York Times written by Daniel Carlat

Dr. Drug Rep

One can justly despise very many of these people.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The paradigm of the modern mental health field in the west is:

1)Every dysfunctional behavior(And really every behavior, period) is the manifestation of underlying psychology/thought.

2)All psychology/thought has a an underlying biological basis.

3)Because there is a biological basis for dysfunctional behavior, we can identify that behavior as the symptom of a disease, and treat it.

That sounds to me like a pretty decent position to take. It is strongly in agreement with neuroscience, and science in general. Of course we have to be careful about what we consider dysfunction, but for the most part people seek treatment for themselves - it's not forced on them - so they are going to the doctor because something is effecting their quality of life, or they are worried about it, and they want to change it.

We also have to be careful about treatment methods, particularily jumping to chemical intervention(pharmaceuticals) when other treatments such as talking may work just as well or better without the inherent health risks.

The bottom line is that as long as treatment is voluntary - so that if you're being diagnosed with this stuff then its because you want/choose to deal with it in the context of mental health - then all of these tools to help identify and describe and eventually treat dysfunctional behaviors are okay. In this context "dysfunction" is always defined as that which is bothering the person in question. If the diagnosis and resultant treatment help that person, in terms of improving their quality of life, what does anyone else care? It doesn't seem like our subjective impression that treatment for these "normal" behaviors is "silly" should prevent anyone from being treated for something which is bothering them.

Edit to add: Of course this way of doing things plays right into the hands of the pharm companies, and of course corporations often don't have your best interests in mind. But, is it that the mental health field is intentionally directing the clinical process so that it is favorable to pharm co.'s at the expense of your health? Or is it that the pharm co.'s provide something which is really helpful and desirable, and that the field is progressing in an unbiased and positive way and it just so happens that the pharm co's benefit from this developement tremendously?

[edit on 4/9/10 by OnceReturned]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


Thank you for posting that! I actually have been diagnosed with IED. I used to get soooo angry over nothing... it was always so random. I would always get in fights for no reason, sometimes with strangers at school, sometimes with family.

I want the rest of you to imagine that.. you are sitting around at a nice family dinner, and all of a sudden you feel the barely controllable urge to do some EXTREMELY violent things to your own family for no reason what so ever. Sometimes that barely controllable urge isn't controllable at all, especially if someone is provoking you. It is not pleasant, at all. And never mind the relationship problems, that's a whole other thing all together.

That being said, I have been prescribed all sorts of things for IED, including a dosage of around 800 mg of seroquel a day. Stuff makes you like a zombie, and doesn't play well with other medications. Also pretty sure it can give you diabetes. I don't take any of these any more, and I don't think I am TOO crazy. I now have a wife and son (and some kitties), and am quite happy.

So, I don't agree with the prescribed treatment. I can say that I have found something that works for me though (can't say what it is on here, sorry. ), along with occasional meditation. Hell I haven't had a problem with the IED for a few years now that I think about it. Also, i am not saying that the meds didn't help, it's just that they weren't worth the side effects.

Anyways, I'm rambling. Later!



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 

No, not true.
"On a blustery fall New England day in 2001, a friendly representative from Wyeth Pharmaceuticals came into my office in Newburyport, Mass., and made me an offer I found hard to refuse."
This is called bribery. Saying psychologists get paid to sell drugs is like saying police get paid to underhanded dealings, or judges get paid to let off criminals.

ANYone can take a bribe, and give one. I would despise any psychologist who did.


reply to post by OnceReturned
 

Not necessarily. Things like PTSD cant happen biologically - only traumatically.
There is researche in to if IF there is a biological basis that may make people more SUSCEPTIBLE, but dont know for sure...



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ganja
 


It's actually really hard to separate the side effects of a psychiatric medication from the disorder itself. Since these disorders are caused by the brain they can be considered a brain disorder. And like other disorders the longer they are allowed to continue the more problems they will cause in the brain, which can create a number of new symptoms. While these symptoms might go away after medication is ceased, it is very possible that the medication is simply bringing other minor problems to a greater light.

Take for example schizophrenia. One of the worst "side effects" of anti-psychotics is called tardive dyskinesia. This essentially causes involuntary movements similar to Parkinsonism. However, if you look at someone who has had schizophrenia for years and never taken medication, similar symptoms begin to emerge. It appears that the medication only makes it appear sooner than it would if the disease were allowed to run a normal unimpeded course.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 




Not necessarily. Things like PTSD cant happen biologically - only traumatically. There is researche in to if IF there is a biological basis that may make people more SUSCEPTIBLE, but dont know for sure...


While PTSD is always "caused" by an external stimuli, it is likely that the event has also caused some structural change in the brain. Even simple facts learned in school cause a rewiring in the brain, this is how we learn. However, when one is faced with a situation that challenges everything they know it is likely that some major rewiring occurs. So, while it may not have a biological cause, the symptoms are further perpetuated and exacerbated by changes that have occurred in the brain. Thus why the best course of treatment is a combination of meds and psychotherapy. So, one can handle the symptoms in the short term, but to also help the person come to terms with what they have experienced and learn how to deal with it, which as a result will rewire the brain in a way that is closer to what it was originally.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ganja
 




Take for example schizophrenia. One of the worst "side effects" of anti-psychotics is called tardive dyskinesia. This essentially causes involuntary movements similar to Parkinsonism. However, if you look at someone who has had schizophrenia for years and never taken medication, similar symptoms begin to emerge. It appears that the medication only makes it appear sooner than it would if the disease were allowed to run a normal unimpeded course.


So if you gave Thorazine to non-schizophrenics, they would never develop tardive dyskinesia? There is no animal model in which these drugs cause a similar effect? (I'd look it up myself right now but I have to go to work.)



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ganja
 

If you simply had uncontrollable thoughts/feelings... I would call it obsessive compulsive, or it WOULD be if you actually carried it out - obsessive means thinking about it (intrusive thoughts) and compulsive is actually carrying it out, and feeling you have no control that you are doing it. OCD, or maybe some form of expressing something unconscious (like a trauma you suppressed, or other).

As you said, psychotherapy would be my suggestion - can be anything from talking about it, or meditation, relaxation technique will help. Wish you luck!


reply to post by Xcalibur254
 

called "exacerbates symptoms"



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Yeah, in some cases, sure it can be hard. However, when you start taking something and it makes you do something wayy outside of the norm or even unable to function, I would call it a safe bet to say that it is a side effect of the medication. this is why they have multiple types of meds for the same disorder in the first place, so that if one isn't compatible with a patient, they can maybe try a different one that isn't as bad. They even cross medicate. They use some anti seizure medicine for some people with OCD if I remember correctly.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


Spot on! Yeah I had a bit of a problem with obsessive thoughts, as well as impulse control problems. Like I said, it wasn't fun, and the IED didn't help things.
Just wanted to chime in on the IED aspect though, not necessarily go into my personal diagnosis
.

And thanks for the well wishes, but things are good these days



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 

Rewriting is a conscious part of learning though - it cant just be rewritten by chemicals. Chemicals are temporary.

They can help to 'catalyse' the rewriting, but not by themselfs!



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 


That's not entirely true. One of the current theories in schizophrenia is that it is partially caused by a build-up of dopamine in the brain. So, one of the functions of anti-psychotics is to lower the levels of dopamine in the brain. However, low levels of dopamine in the brain can cause Parkinson like symptoms, which is why Parkinson's is treated with L-Dopa. However, when a person goes off of the meds these symptoms usually dissipate within a few weeks, which would indicate that it was related to the dopamine levels and once they got back up to normal the involuntary movements ceased. The problem with schizophrenia is that since it is such a pervasive disorder it is likely that the areas that antipsychotics work on have already suffered some damage and as a result the schizophrenic may never recover from the tardive dyskinesia even after going off the meds.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join