I take issue with calling it “treatable.” From personal experience, the treatment doesn’t really fix anything - it just makes it noticeably easier to bypass your natural reaction to being in an extremely unfavorable environment. That’s not treating the problem, it’s masking it akin to slapping a fresh coat of paint on walls with a serious mold infestation inside.
It’s addressing the symptom instead of the actual problem, and our entire society is geared towards doing this because it allows people to keep being used to better the lives of those one-percenters running everything while pushing the cost of keeping the people doing so back onto those same people. It’s disgusting, and it’s nearing a breaking point that’s gonna be very ugly when everything snaps.
I’m not confused by it. Much of society is, however.
I see the utility in treating someone to get through an unusually difficult - but temporary - situation. When the difficult situation has become the norm that you can’t escape from… then you’re no longer "treating,” but instead doping them to get the performance you want out of them - and the “treatment” is never-ending.
When the difficult situation has become the norm that you can’t escape from… then you’re no longer "treating,” but instead doping them
Idk with which forms of therapy you’ve made experiences with. I wouldn’t call it “doping”. Depending on the illness or disorder, helping patients to deal with their shit in a way that improves their well-being at least a little bit (and more in the long-term) is what it’s about. This does not neccessarily include work-perfromance or something like that. In fact, this is often not even important for therapy.
and the “treatment” is never-ending
Depending on what you have on your plate, long-time treatment can of course be required. What do you expect?
Psychologists can do a lot, but they can’t do miracles.
While for some short-term treatment is sufficient, it isn’t for others.
I’d like to inject some sanity (pun intended) into their point. Diabetes is body vs itself which obviously needs assistance. Some mental health things need to be “treated” just to make someone a “productive” member of society.
For a slightly different take, would you amputate one of your arms to fit in with a society where everyone else has only one arm?
… Yeah, obviously those things are bad. That’s a given. I was talking about things that aren’t harmful to anybody, neurodivergent people have been punished since always for being different
You have to be very careful with this. Neurodivergence is a spectrum and while some of the symptomatic behaviors are definitely mild things that society should probably just learn to accept and accommodate-- other cause real damage and make it impossible for the patient to live a satisfying life.
This is especially true with ASD, where the “highest” functioning patients might just be harmlessly quirky, but other patients with the same diagnosis on paper (important for insurance and legislation) aren’t able to express themselves and might not even be potty trained, or able to dress themselves.
Saying that we “shouldn’t try to change people with Autism, society should just adapt” provides cover for politicians and health insurance companies to cut the very expensive therapies that help mold young children and enable them to achieve what they want out of life.
The fact is that we all have to change a little to accommodate society. Humans don’t spring from the womb talking, wearing clothes, and using the toilet. Society isn’t going to adapt to allowing my wife’s patient who likes to rip off all of their clothes and masturbate at the grocery store to do so. And now, because of the online discourse of “Neurodivergence isn’t a mental illness”, politicians are trying to cut my wife’s funding. After all, why would you spend tens of thousands of euros per child if their illness isn’t even real?
Since my spouse happens to be Type-I, yeah - I have. It’s not nearly equivalent. If anything, they are opposing examples - without insulin, none of us will be our normal selves. Insulin is a normal product of the human anatomy, depression meds are not.
So we come to the crux of it. Medications that benefit you and yours need are fine, but if someone else needs a different medication it’s ethically problematic. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah - that’s it. You got me all figured out, ya effing moron.
It’s obvious you’re just out to “win” an argument rather than consider what’s being said and debate it in good faith. Evidenced by your complete lack of logical refutation of my points, but instead making a rather lame attempt to claim I’m the one being unreasonable.
I take issue with calling it “treatable.” From personal experience, the treatment doesn’t really fix anything - it just makes it noticeably easier to bypass your natural reaction to being in an extremely unfavorable environment. That’s not treating the problem, it’s masking it akin to slapping a fresh coat of paint on walls with a serious mold infestation inside.
It’s addressing the symptom instead of the actual problem, and our entire society is geared towards doing this because it allows people to keep being used to better the lives of those one-percenters running everything while pushing the cost of keeping the people doing so back onto those same people. It’s disgusting, and it’s nearing a breaking point that’s gonna be very ugly when everything snaps.
Thanks for sharing. ‘Treatable’ does not mean ‘curable,’ and you are not the first person to make that confusion.
I’m not confused by it. Much of society is, however.
I see the utility in treating someone to get through an unusually difficult - but temporary - situation. When the difficult situation has become the norm that you can’t escape from… then you’re no longer "treating,” but instead doping them to get the performance you want out of them - and the “treatment” is never-ending.
Idk with which forms of therapy you’ve made experiences with. I wouldn’t call it “doping”. Depending on the illness or disorder, helping patients to deal with their shit in a way that improves their well-being at least a little bit (and more in the long-term) is what it’s about. This does not neccessarily include work-perfromance or something like that. In fact, this is often not even important for therapy.
Depending on what you have on your plate, long-time treatment can of course be required. What do you expect?
Psychologists can do a lot, but they can’t do miracles.
While for some short-term treatment is sufficient, it isn’t for others.
Explain how long term mental health treatment is “doping” while type-1 diabetics who must take lifelong doses of insulin are not.
I’d like to inject some sanity (pun intended) into their point. Diabetes is body vs itself which obviously needs assistance. Some mental health things need to be “treated” just to make someone a “productive” member of society.
For a slightly different take, would you amputate one of your arms to fit in with a society where everyone else has only one arm?
mental illness is also the body versus itself, precipitating untreated in self harm, suicide, and addiction.
… Yeah, obviously those things are bad. That’s a given. I was talking about things that aren’t harmful to anybody, neurodivergent people have been punished since always for being different
Neurodivergence is not mental illness. The rest of us were talking about mental illness which is an entirely different topic.
You have to be very careful with this. Neurodivergence is a spectrum and while some of the symptomatic behaviors are definitely mild things that society should probably just learn to accept and accommodate-- other cause real damage and make it impossible for the patient to live a satisfying life.
This is especially true with ASD, where the “highest” functioning patients might just be harmlessly quirky, but other patients with the same diagnosis on paper (important for insurance and legislation) aren’t able to express themselves and might not even be potty trained, or able to dress themselves.
Saying that we “shouldn’t try to change people with Autism, society should just adapt” provides cover for politicians and health insurance companies to cut the very expensive therapies that help mold young children and enable them to achieve what they want out of life.
The fact is that we all have to change a little to accommodate society. Humans don’t spring from the womb talking, wearing clothes, and using the toilet. Society isn’t going to adapt to allowing my wife’s patient who likes to rip off all of their clothes and masturbate at the grocery store to do so. And now, because of the online discourse of “Neurodivergence isn’t a mental illness”, politicians are trying to cut my wife’s funding. After all, why would you spend tens of thousands of euros per child if their illness isn’t even real?
Fiddles said it much more nuanced, and smarter than I could have. Neurodivergence is mental illness to some people… And I don’t like those people
How does insulin affect your mental processes? What a dumb false equivalence!
you’ve never seen anyone on the extreme ends of the blood sugar scale, have you?
Since my spouse happens to be Type-I, yeah - I have. It’s not nearly equivalent. If anything, they are opposing examples - without insulin, none of us will be our normal selves. Insulin is a normal product of the human anatomy, depression meds are not.
So we come to the crux of it. Medications that benefit you and yours need are fine, but if someone else needs a different medication it’s ethically problematic. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah - that’s it. You got me all figured out, ya effing moron.
It’s obvious you’re just out to “win” an argument rather than consider what’s being said and debate it in good faith. Evidenced by your complete lack of logical refutation of my points, but instead making a rather lame attempt to claim I’m the one being unreasonable.
I’m done with your bullshit. Goodnight.