Re:Response to this criticism.

“You are suggesting that to use a taxonomy is itself offensive or unprofessional.”

Not necessarily, the criticism was partially about the public co-mingling of professional jargon with patients’ involvement.

Psychiatric patients and especially people with severe trauma histories have endured additional abuses because of rigid precepts about their circumstances. Some of those abuses are related to a medical model, psychiatric establishment, and diagnostic system that was not aware or could not (will not) accept that such horrendous things could be inflicted on them.

Therefore, they were (are) dismissed as disorders (schizophrenia, Munchausen, factitious, delusional, bipolar, etc.) or subjected to pseudo-psychiatric terms such as “false memory syndrome.”

Perhaps it’s an erroneous belief, though it seems that EMDR more than any other current approach has offered treatment and support to trauma survivors.

Though it may appear to you that the criticism was inappropriate or at least out of proportion to the “psychiatrist’s” question. In that sense your point is accepted and well taken.

However, some antagonists to trauma victims and their therapists sometimes include individuals that pretend to be professionals and have been known to taunt patients with suggestions that their memories and symptoms are “only” products of their “schizophrenia.” It is an extension of the same type of unbelievable attacks that initially occurred to the patients. Additionally some actual professionals seem to have some intense opposition to facets of trauma therapy.

When an anonymous person that claims to be a “psychiatrist” ascribes acting-out for people on an anti-psychotic to “dissociation” that is a component of schizophrenia, it touches on the issues of prejudice and denial that many people with dissociative disorders have experienced. It may be argued that the behaviors (fire setting and suicidality) were not related to dissociation or conversely (Dr Inobe’s point) the “schizophrenic” symptoms were dissociative in nature.

Some perspective, ten years ago people claiming to have been abused when they were children by a variety of clergy from a large church would probably have been diagnosed as suffering from a psychosis.

The issue of nomenclature was not the intent of the criticism, it was partially about the possible inadvertent reification of the “labels” such that, for example, in some of the forum’s messages people refer to themselves as “I’m a DID,” or “I’m a Bipolar,” or “I’m a Schizophrenic,” or whatever, as compared to that they are people that have diagnoses or symptoms associated with a disorder.

The diagnoses are usually not physiological or physical realities, they are constellations of symptoms and are associated with biological/psychosocial phenomena. Therefore, the criticism was partially that a professional exchange that involves diagnostic discussions might be misconstrued and reinforce patients’ unfortunate view that they “are the labels.” Admittedly, it was NOT necessarily the case in the differential Dx posts above or generally true about the EMDR forum.

After another review of the messages concerning “schizophrenia” versus “dissociative” EMDR treatments, if accepted at face value, they are NOT “unprofessional” or “unethical,” but triggered the issues raised in my replies.

If I offended you or falsely accused you of unethical actions I apologize. The comments were primarily about the public access format and concern for some possible participants, and then digressed into possible “psychiatric” types of abuse of trauma survivors.

Your admonition concerning contributing relevant posts is understood. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Replies:

Re:Response to this criticism. , by Sandra Paulsen Inobe PhD, 08/12/03 Re:Response to this criticism. , by Pravir1, 08/12/03 Re:Response to this criticism. , by Sandra Paulsen Inobe PhD, 08/12/03

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.