2 ms·

If someone is experiencing a physical symptom and you tell them it's not actually physical, that is dismissing it. If someone has whiplash from a car crash and

If someone is experiencing a physical symptom and you tell them it's not actually physical, that is dismissing it. If someone has whiplash from a car crash and you tell them the pain is just a result of their anxiety about the crash, that is dismissing their physical pain. Because the pain actually has a cause independent of their psychological state that you are declining to acknowledge or treat directly. More specifically, if the physical sensation is caused by something physical, then this is really quite dismissive (from grandparent): > there isn't really a great model of care for people who won't or can't believe that their ailment is psychological and requires psychological treatment Maybe it's your problem that you won't or can't believe that the ailment might not be psychological. > You, however, do seem to be dismissing it, by saying "nothing but anxiety". Anxiety is very real. I am not dismissing anxiety in the least. I know more about it than I would like to, and yes it is very real.

arkades 11y ago
>If someone is experiencing a physical symptom and you tell them it's not actually physical, that is dismissing it. If you think diagnosing something as anxiety is the same as dismissing that person's experience and suffering and need for help, you're part of the problem.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- haberman 11y ago
  It's dismissive if the cause is not actually anxiety. Your entire argument only works if you accept the premise that this condition stems from anxiety alone. Since you have accepted this with what appears to be near certainty, then of course the rest of your argument makes sense to you, and your diagnosis of anxiety probably feels compassionate and sensitive. To a person who does not share your confidence that anxiety is the only factor in play here, your dismissal of other possible factors is crazy-making. Just acknowledging that there might be a factor here we don't fully understand would be enough. It's fine if anxiety is the best diagnosis and treatment plan given what we know right now. But the certainty that it's the entire story is off-putting. You said yourself that depression/anxiety for physical symptoms are "diagnoses of exclusion, coming long after everything else has been exhausted." They are a fallback when you don't have another explanation. So why do you present a fallback diagnosis with certainty?
cpncrunch 11y ago
>If someone is experiencing a physical symptom and you tell them it's not actually physical, that is dismissing it Nobody is saying that at all. The physical causes should be investigated, obviously. Suggesting to the patient that it might be psychological is not "dismissing" anything. Of course, it is true that most patients are vehemently opposed to the idea of psychosomatic pain, as well as many/most doctors. John Sarno's books are a fascinating read. In this case there doesn't appear to be any pain, or physical sensation at all. You can't sense a "hole", any more than you can sense inflammation or the like.
- arkades 11y ago
  I'm not familiar with Dr. Sarno personally, but I am familiar with New York's PM&R scene. I'd be mildly skeptical about things coming out of there. Not very skeptical, they're excellent doctors, but there's a strong strain of very-alternative medicine running in that particular sub-culture. On the other hand, if you want a really mind-expanding read about the fuzzier edges of medicine, you might want to read Daniel Moerman's "Meaning, Medicine, and the 'Placebo Effect'." Don't let down your skeptical guard, but it's worth a read.

arkades 11y ago

>If someone is experiencing a physical symptom and you tell them it's not actually physical, that is dismissing it. If you think diagnosing something as anxiety is the same as dismissing that person's experience and suffering and need for help, you're part of the problem.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
haberman 11y ago
It's dismissive if the cause is not actually anxiety. Your entire argument only works if you accept the premise that this condition stems from anxiety alone. Since you have accepted this with what appears to be near certainty, then of course the rest of your argument makes sense to you, and your diagnosis of anxiety probably feels compassionate and sensitive. To a person who does not share your confidence that anxiety is the only factor in play here, your dismissal of other possible factors is crazy-making. Just acknowledging that there might be a factor here we don't fully understand would be enough. It's fine if anxiety is the best diagnosis and treatment plan given what we know right now. But the certainty that it's the entire story is off-putting. You said yourself that depression/anxiety for physical symptoms are "diagnoses of exclusion, coming long after everything else has been exhausted." They are a fallback when you don't have another explanation. So why do you present a fallback diagnosis with certainty?

cpncrunch 11y ago

>If someone is experiencing a physical symptom and you tell them it's not actually physical, that is dismissing it Nobody is saying that at all. The physical causes should be investigated, obviously. Suggesting to the patient that it might be psychological is not "dismissing" anything. Of course, it is true that most patients are vehemently opposed to the idea of psychosomatic pain, as well as many/most doctors. John Sarno's books are a fascinating read. In this case there doesn't appear to be any pain, or physical sensation at all. You can't sense a "hole", any more than you can sense inflammation or the like.

arkades 11y ago
I'm not familiar with Dr. Sarno personally, but I am familiar with New York's PM&R scene. I'd be mildly skeptical about things coming out of there. Not very skeptical, they're excellent doctors, but there's a strong strain of very-alternative medicine running in that particular sub-culture. On the other hand, if you want a really mind-expanding read about the fuzzier edges of medicine, you might want to read Daniel Moerman's "Meaning, Medicine, and the 'Placebo Effect'." Don't let down your skeptical guard, but it's worth a read.