3 ms·

> Anti-depressive (and other psychiatric) drugs are a subset of "medical drugs". No, they are not. Medical drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat medical con

by lutusp 13y ago

> Anti-depressive (and other psychiatric) drugs are a subset of "medical drugs". No, they are not. Medical drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat medical conditions, not psychological ones. There are some medical drugs that are prescribed off-label to treat mental conditions, but that's a shady practice (albeit a common one). > You can, in fact, sue a psyschologist for malpractice ... Yes, but you can't compare what he does to effective practices, because there aren't any. This is why such cases are so rare, and why malpractice insurance is nearly unheard of among psychiatrists and psychologists. Many psychologists and psychiatrists have ruined the lives of their clients but proved immune to prosecution -- for example, the psychiatrist who prescribed the drugs that killed Rebecca Riley was eventually allowed to continue practicing psychiatry, and was neither prosecuted or sued (Rebecca's father was convicted of first-degree murder, her mother of second-degree murder). http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/hold_for_verdic_1.html http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/hold_... Quote: "Shortly after Rebecca died, Kifuji had entered into a voluntary agreement with the board to halt her practice. But two years later, after a grand jury declined to indict her and the board conducted its own inquiry, the board last fall allowed her to return to practice. She is currently seeing patients at Tufts Medical Center." > ... but a psychologist isn't going to be prescribing anti-depressants True, unless by the term "psychologist" we mean anyone practicing clinical psychology, in the same way that a physicist practices physics -- a way of speaking that groups particle physicists and cosmologists together, two fields much less alike than psychiatry and clinical psychology.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Medical drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat medical conditions, not psychological ones. There is no such thing as a "medical condition". There are physical conditions (of which psychiatric conditions are a subset) and medical (as opposed to, e.g., surgical) treatments for physical conditions. For psychiatric conditions not to be physical would involve mystical mind-body dualism, which is an anti-scientific proposition. > Yes, but you can't compare what he does to effective practices, because there aren't any. Psychological malpractice is generally a subset of medical malpractice, whose standard isn't about "effective practices" but, like all professional malpractice, is about accepted standards within the profession. > This is why such cases are so rare Psychological malpractice cases aren't that rare. It's probably somewhat harder to establish causality in psychological malpractice cases than, say, some of the more obvious kinds of surgical malpractice cases, but that's not a matter of standards but of the difficulty in tracing particular harms to particular failures to meet the professional standard of care. > why malpractice insurance is nearly unheard of among psychiatrists and psychologists. Malpractice insurance is a practical necessity for psychiatrists -- who are, after all, medical doctors -- and is not at all uncommon for psychologists in clinical practice. > Many psychologists and psychiatrists have ruined the lives of their clients but proved immune to prosecution And many medical doctors in specialties other than psychiatry have killed patients and yet not been successfully prosecuted. That doesn't mean that medical doctors are, as a class, immune to malpractice claims, it just means that not every thing that they do that ends up causing harm ends up resulting in legal liability. Psychiatrists are no different. > unless by the term "psychologist" we mean anyone practicing clinical psychology Psychiatry isn't clinical psychology, it is medicine, and its practiced by medical doctors with a particular specialty, not psychologists. Making up your own non-standard definitions of terms to justify your completely inaccurate rants isn't helpful.
- lutusp 13y ago
  >> Medical drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat medical conditions, not psychological ones. > There is no such thing as a "medical condition". Are you sure you want to go down that road? Cancer is a medical condition. ADHD is not. Psychologists are not doctors and cannot treat medial conditions -- they are neither trained or licensed to do that. Psychiatrists are psychologists with an M.D. degree. When you call a psychiatrist "doctor" , you are acknowledging his medical training, not his psychological training. There is no mental doctor, and there is no mental specialty in medicine. The reason? Modern medicine is evidence based, and psychological treatments are not evidence-based. > Psychological malpractice cases aren't that rare. They are very rare. Public records show that, when something goes wrong in psychological treatment of children, the parents are more likely to face charges than the psychologist or psychiatrist, and I already gave one well-known example of a psychiatrist still practicing after being involved in a case that led to murder charges against the parents, who administered the drugs the psychiatrist prescribed. > Psychiatrists are no different. The public record shows that this is false. There are cases, but they represent a small fraction of those in medical fields, and the behaviors tend to be more egregious -- sexual abuse, damage to the patient through outright incompetence or prescribing the wrong drug. There are fewer cases such as one sees in medical specialties that have established procedures based on long clinical experience -- and scientific evidence to support clinical practice. > Psychiatry isn't clinical psychology, it is medicine A psychiatrist is a psychologist with an M.D. degree. The M.D. degree is acquired before the person begins psychiatric training, for a number of reasons including the fact that psychiatry is not a medical field in the modern sense of the word -- fields based on science, and on evidence. The only reason psychiatry exists is to confer an unearned status on psychologists and psychology. And recent changes will make this obvious even to those who have been avoiding reality. One of those changes is the NIMH's recent decision to abandon the DSM, psychiatry's "Bible" and primary diagnostic guide. The reason? It's not reliable enough to be useful in research. About this decision, NIMH director Thomas Insel said "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." Source: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Now - imagine someone in authority deciding to throw out an influential oncology textbook on the ground that it's not valid. Imagine the uproar. But in this case, it caused some comment but no great surprise -- most people in the field saw this coming. The reason for that muted reaction is that psychiatry isn't evidence-based and it is not medicine, all public claims to the contrary. > Making up your own non-standard definitions of terms to justify your completely inaccurate rants isn't helpful. Shall I give you Insel's email address so you can complain to the source of my views about how inaccurate he is?

by lutusp 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Medical drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat medical conditions, not psychological ones. There is no such thing as a "medical condition". There are physical conditions (of which psychiatric conditions are a subset) and medical (as opposed to, e.g., surgical) treatments for physical conditions. For psychiatric conditions not to be physical would involve mystical mind-body dualism, which is an anti-scientific proposition. > Yes, but you can't compare what he does to effective practices, because there aren't any. Psychological malpractice is generally a subset of medical malpractice, whose standard isn't about "effective practices" but, like all professional malpractice, is about accepted standards within the profession. > This is why such cases are so rare Psychological malpractice cases aren't that rare. It's probably somewhat harder to establish causality in psychological malpractice cases than, say, some of the more obvious kinds of surgical malpractice cases, but that's not a matter of standards but of the difficulty in tracing particular harms to particular failures to meet the professional standard of care. > why malpractice insurance is nearly unheard of among psychiatrists and psychologists. Malpractice insurance is a practical necessity for psychiatrists -- who are, after all, medical doctors -- and is not at all uncommon for psychologists in clinical practice. > Many psychologists and psychiatrists have ruined the lives of their clients but proved immune to prosecution And many medical doctors in specialties other than psychiatry have killed patients and yet not been successfully prosecuted. That doesn't mean that medical doctors are, as a class, immune to malpractice claims, it just means that not every thing that they do that ends up causing harm ends up resulting in legal liability. Psychiatrists are no different. > unless by the term "psychologist" we mean anyone practicing clinical psychology Psychiatry isn't clinical psychology, it is medicine, and its practiced by medical doctors with a particular specialty, not psychologists. Making up your own non-standard definitions of terms to justify your completely inaccurate rants isn't helpful.

lutusp 13y ago
>> Medical drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat medical conditions, not psychological ones. > There is no such thing as a "medical condition". Are you sure you want to go down that road? Cancer is a medical condition. ADHD is not. Psychologists are not doctors and cannot treat medial conditions -- they are neither trained or licensed to do that. Psychiatrists are psychologists with an M.D. degree. When you call a psychiatrist "doctor" , you are acknowledging his medical training, not his psychological training. There is no mental doctor, and there is no mental specialty in medicine. The reason? Modern medicine is evidence based, and psychological treatments are not evidence-based. > Psychological malpractice cases aren't that rare. They are very rare. Public records show that, when something goes wrong in psychological treatment of children, the parents are more likely to face charges than the psychologist or psychiatrist, and I already gave one well-known example of a psychiatrist still practicing after being involved in a case that led to murder charges against the parents, who administered the drugs the psychiatrist prescribed. > Psychiatrists are no different. The public record shows that this is false. There are cases, but they represent a small fraction of those in medical fields, and the behaviors tend to be more egregious -- sexual abuse, damage to the patient through outright incompetence or prescribing the wrong drug. There are fewer cases such as one sees in medical specialties that have established procedures based on long clinical experience -- and scientific evidence to support clinical practice. > Psychiatry isn't clinical psychology, it is medicine A psychiatrist is a psychologist with an M.D. degree. The M.D. degree is acquired before the person begins psychiatric training, for a number of reasons including the fact that psychiatry is not a medical field in the modern sense of the word -- fields based on science, and on evidence. The only reason psychiatry exists is to confer an unearned status on psychologists and psychology. And recent changes will make this obvious even to those who have been avoiding reality. One of those changes is the NIMH's recent decision to abandon the DSM, psychiatry's "Bible" and primary diagnostic guide. The reason? It's not reliable enough to be useful in research. About this decision, NIMH director Thomas Insel said "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." Source: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Now - imagine someone in authority deciding to throw out an influential oncology textbook on the ground that it's not valid. Imagine the uproar. But in this case, it caused some comment but no great surprise -- most people in the field saw this coming. The reason for that muted reaction is that psychiatry isn't evidence-based and it is not medicine, all public claims to the contrary. > Making up your own non-standard definitions of terms to justify your completely inaccurate rants isn't helpful. Shall I give you Insel's email address so you can complain to the source of my views about how inaccurate he is?