And yes I agree, the terminology is very confusing in and of itself, and I'm not sure what's behind the rational of where the "mental illness" line gets drawn.
As I understand it, most members of modern psychiatry would consider all of it to fall under "mental illness" -- since psychiatry deals with mental/neurological diseases, disorders and other types of "illness", while the usual medical doctor deals with "physical illness". So, technically, if you see a psychiatrist for it, you're talking mental illness; for everything else, it's regular doctor and physical illness.
The problem is that this completely ignores the popular connotations and attitude towards that term, and since Lindholm herself is not (oh, so OBVIOUSLY not!) a psychiatrist nor educated to any significant degree in psychiatry even as a layman (or else she wouldn't make some of the bald-faced statements she does), that was a sign to me that she was taking a lot of the terms based not on the classical jargon-meaning but interpreting based on non-jargon connotations.
Hence, my rather confusing (to anyone better-educated in the classical psychiatry versions, even as a patient) distinction... but it also really comes down to the fact that I figured, anyone who might read Lindholm and agree is probably someone who needs to be educated from the ground up. Sometimes the easiest way to do that is to toss out the pseudo-jargon that would flip a switch and load up the usual connotations, and give them entirely new jargon, as an attempt to make them see the concept behind the jargon through a new perspective.
Or alternately: "mental illness" is what it's called in a doctor's office; "disability" is what it's called at school/work, where the issue isn't whether it's "illness" (curable) or "long-term condition" (incurable) or even what caused it, only the question of "what concessions do we, or can we, make so you can do your job".
no subject
Date: 12 Jun 2010 02:05 pm (UTC)As I understand it, most members of modern psychiatry would consider all of it to fall under "mental illness" -- since psychiatry deals with mental/neurological diseases, disorders and other types of "illness", while the usual medical doctor deals with "physical illness". So, technically, if you see a psychiatrist for it, you're talking mental illness; for everything else, it's regular doctor and physical illness.
The problem is that this completely ignores the popular connotations and attitude towards that term, and since Lindholm herself is not (oh, so OBVIOUSLY not!) a psychiatrist nor educated to any significant degree in psychiatry even as a layman (or else she wouldn't make some of the bald-faced statements she does), that was a sign to me that she was taking a lot of the terms based not on the classical jargon-meaning but interpreting based on non-jargon connotations.
Hence, my rather confusing (to anyone better-educated in the classical psychiatry versions, even as a patient) distinction... but it also really comes down to the fact that I figured, anyone who might read Lindholm and agree is probably someone who needs to be educated from the ground up. Sometimes the easiest way to do that is to toss out the pseudo-jargon that would flip a switch and load up the usual connotations, and give them entirely new jargon, as an attempt to make them see the concept behind the jargon through a new perspective.
Or alternately: "mental illness" is what it's called in a doctor's office; "disability" is what it's called at school/work, where the issue isn't whether it's "illness" (curable) or "long-term condition" (incurable) or even what caused it, only the question of "what concessions do we, or can we, make so you can do your job".