You're viewing part of a thread.
I honestly don't even know what you're trying argue with me about at this point. Do you hold the position that a subclinical set of symptoms is a disorder? Because that's what I disagree with. If not, then what exactly is at issue beyond your imagination of my position?
You are trying to claim that you are making a simple factual statement when in fact the subtext - which is probably obvious to all - is that in your opinion you don't think people's claims of impairment or dysfunction are valid unless they have a specific medical diagnosis that YOU feel is valid. And the proof of this is that your statement can be as true reversed. IOW, you have NO idea if they've been medically diagnosed or if any diagnosis or absence thereof is valid or not. It really negates your point.
And why does this all matter to me, personally? Because my own personal experience with the medical establishment is that they pretty much throw shit out there that may be valid or may not and relies heavily on both the doctor's and the patient's own subjective assessment. A sibling was for decades diagnosed as intellectually disabled when in fact he has ASD because they were unable to communicate effectively. I was diagnosed with a common mental disorder by one doctor and told there was no way I could have that by another. It goes on... And so I tend to be pretty sympathetic when someone says "I feel impaired by <condition X>" and I don't feel a need to question whether or not they have <condition X> or if there was a formal diagnosis or not. Again, because many of those diagnoses are about as valid one way or the other has throwing darts. Could be good, could have missed something completely, could have misinterpreted what the patient said because they weren't able to communicate it in that moment.
What is important is what the person says about themselves. If they want to say they have ADHD or ASD or whatever, it's not my place to gate keep or question that. Nor yours.
Edit: To put it another way... your statement is about as useful as, when someone says "I just love this blue dress I'm wearing" pointing out that "well akshually that's turquoise". The point is THEY like the color.
Yeah, but see, that's not at all what I was doing. And that's why what you're saying is completely off base. The core of my position is that medicalizing subclinical symptoms is dangerous and harmful. I believe an individualized holistic approach should be made instead of trying to force a medical diagnosis that cannot fit. Your objections are actually my objections believe it or not! We both want a holistic approach! You just are jumping wild conclusions and what I mean.
The core of my position is that medicalizing subclinical symptoms is dangerous and harmful.
Ok, let's assume you really meant that.
I have three issues with this: 1. what is deemed subclinical in this context is a lot more variable than one might think. It's not like diagnosing cancer. 2. How is it dangerous and harmful? 3. Is it more dangerous to invalidate claims that medical professionals consider subclinical because they just don't know, aren't getting complete information or had too many patients that day?
I believe an individualized holistic approach should be made instead of trying to force a medical diagnosis that cannot fit.
That doesn't make any sense.
Its dangerous and harmful because it leads to inappropriate interventions. Every intervention has a different profile of what harm it could cause. And sure it's a problem if medical professionals don't listen to people. But it's equally a problem to attempt to pathologize something that coping mechanisms and therapy could alleviate. I'm specifically using subjective language here because it IS subjective. Every individual case is different and I don't have a particular opinion on yours or the author of this tweet. This tweet just reminded me (as it did with many other posters that didn't quite get the response I did) that pathologizing everything is also a challenge. You don't need to treat things that don't cause problems, essentially. It seemed to me to be a pretty uncontroversial position.
Its dangerous and harmful because it leads to inappropriate interventions.
What interventions? You seem to be assuming that people who are saying "hey, I have condition X" are running out and getting treatment without getting diagnosed. And how is this different that "appropriate coping mechanisms"?
I'm completely sympathetic to the argument that people should absolutely deal with their issues rather than blame some random condition they think they have.
But the vibe I get here is that you believe only Qualified Medical Professionals (tm) should be allowed to find and provide treatment, not the patient themselves. That they should not have agency in making decisions about what they have and how to deal with it. And from personal experience, this doesn't work. And from very bitter and damaging personal experience of the LGBTQIA+ community it's frightening.
I'm of the opposite position. A disorder is a medical diagnosis that is treated by medical professionals. Making diagnosises into social categories is what I'm absolutely against because it conflates what a diagnosis is. I don't want to see the normal spectrum of human functioning and coping to be medicalized. I want people to feel secure in finding their best way to function outside of a medical context if appropriate. That was frankly the problem with having homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM. It was pathologized inappropriately.
Your restating of your position here is much clearer. I don't agree with it because I don't believe it's actually being medicalized as you say and I believe that people function and cope just fine, but I do better understand where you are coming from. Thanks for taking the time.