David Healy: The Shipwreck of the Singular
Hector Warnes’ comment on Edward Shorter’s comment
I enjoyed reading Edward Shorter’s comments;he found David Healy’s essay witty and full of “powerful insights.” He further agreed that psychiatry’s “apparent failure in the conventional models, the biospychosocial and the medical,” is atributed to “specific locus: the randomly controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and the hunger for data from epidemiological studies and from rating scales.”
Shorter underlines the fact of the dehumanizing impact of “seeing the patient as a sack of risk, rather than as a sack of enzymes (in the biological model) or an accumulation of ‘risk factors,’ as in the biopsychosocial model.” Henoted further that what was missing in Healy’s overview was the “disappearance of psychopathology from the discipline’s armamentarium of tools.”
The word “armamentarium”was aptly used by Shorter because according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary it means just what we most doubt in our professional endevour:
“A collection of resources available or utilized for an undertaking or field of activity, especially: the equipment, methods, and pharmaceuticals used in Medicine.”
Certainly if we are not clear about the diagnoses, or at least what is wrong with the individual patient, it is unlikely that we would not be as effective in the treatment we are providing.
Shorter, with a sense of humor, adds: “don’t tell us that the problem is ‘depression.’” He may be trying to tell us that anxiety and/or depression is so ubiquitous in most psychiatric illnessess that it would be considered a symptom rather than an illness per se unless,of course,clear boundaries are established.
Shorter seems to support the Scandinavian and German type of psychopathology (or study) of the individual patient rather that the measuring of large and disparate sick populations. In a sense, he adds that this latter “method” is like looking for alost key, not where it fell or was lost but where there is more light in the street.
He is obviously deriding the DSM which is including a growing number of spectrum disorders looking for “heterogenous clinical populations none of which will respond in a uniform way to any imaginable agent.” Healy was convincing in his assertion that the “biobabble,” replacing a “psychobabble,” reminds us of the inadequacy of both the biological and sociological approaches to psychiatric disease.
I would interpret Shorter’s comment on Healy’s essay as saying that the study of the individual patient, unparalled in its uniqueness, would be paramount to his care and treatment. Perhaps the word qualia(from the Latin: “what sort or what kind”) goes further than just the study of psychopathology and enters into the very subjective qualitative experience and beliefs of the patient.
Rodolfo Llinás , in I and the Vortex,raises the pros/cons of using this concept in its subtle blending arguing that it is necessary for an organism’s survival and is the product of neuronal electro-chemical oscillation (Llinas 2002).
A humane approach to psychopathology and to descriptive psychiatry is akin to the best psychotherapy. I seem to read Healy and Shorter in complete agreement in their overall assessment of our crisis.
January 24, 2019