Give psychiatry enough time and they'll find a name and a "underlying" cause for just about any behavior exhibited by modern man or modern me for that matter. I actually enjoy being a hypochondriac when it comes to my mental health. There's an article showing up in today's news websites about Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) that really makes me angry and as soon as I finish picking up the pieces from my shattered keyboard, I will continue.
By definition, intermittent explosive disorder involves multiple outbursts that are way out of proportion to the situation. These angry outbursts often include threats or aggressive actions and property damage. Woot! Woot! Woot! Score two points for the home team. If anyone is keeping score, I now have OCD with ADD topped off by IED (all self diagnosed of course).
Must they diagnose every behavior? The untenable answer is yes, they must - its job security at is finest. I guess the long and short of it is; if they don't diagnose new disorders, they won't get new patients and if they don't get new patients they have no one to prescribe their meds to. Here is what this study all boils down to; "Treatment with antidepressants, including those that target serotonin receptors in the brain, is often helpful, along with behavior therapy akin to anger management". This is what they do! They invent a name for a blanket mental behavior that covers a large amount of the population, they tell you its not your fault (most likely it is your fault), and that they can control it with meds and therapy (covered by most insurances no less).
What's worse is when they convince parents that their children need meds and therapy, thus creating new generations dependent upon psychiatry, a dependence they will carry into their adult lives, ever creating the need for more psychiatrists.
More from the study; "The findings also confirm that for most people, the difficulties associated with the disorder begin during childhood or adolescence, and they often have a profound and ongoing impact on the person's life." Jennifer Hartstein, a psychologist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said she had just diagnosed the disorder in a 16-year-old boy."In most situations, he is relatively affable, calm and very responsible," she said. But in stressful situations at home, he "explodes and tears apart his room, throws things at other people" to the point that his parents have called the police." Execuse me Ms Harstein, but what on Gods Green Earth does a teenager have to be angry about, anyway? If the parents are completely absolved from the causes of this kids behavior, what could possibly be the "stressful situations" at home? He has to take the garbage out? Cleaning his room? Being home before midnight? I don't get it but then I'm not a pyschiatrist either.
The reality is that most likely the parents aren't absolved from responsibility, but then how is this a problem for the child? When it comes to parents taking their kids to psychiatrists, its not the behavior of the child that is the problem, its a problem the parents have with the child's behavior. Why would anyone screw with a child's mind by taking them to therapy or giving them mind altering drugs to control a behavior that they the parents created in the first place? Some would argue because it works. If masking the behavior is one's interpretation of working then I guess it does. I don't consider masking the problem as a success, its but a mere band-aid to future behavioral problems, therapies, clinics, meds, etc.
I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise, I believe him to be another Hollywood type who has confused fame with wisdom. However, I do think he nailed it when he was on the Today show. In a nutshell, he criticized psychiatry and drew attention to its genuine flaws and failings. Tom said that psychiatry had a long history of abusing people, including electroshock. He said, “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.” He said that antidepressants can only “mask the problem” and that “these drugs are very dangerous.” He called psychiatry a “pseudoscience” and suggested that there are better approaches.
You don't have to be a Scientologist to agree with him although the media made it out that way. I don't think any Hollywood star would go on a national news show and call out his interviewer as uneducated on the subject if he himself weren't educated somewhat. I actually believe TC was right, about all of it.