Errol Back-Cunningham (email@example.com(Errol)
2 Oct 1996 11:09:45 GMT
In <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Silke-Maria
>Sylvia T. Paldhan (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>: > To say there are no crazy people begging on the streets is itself
>: > crazy -- though the "problem in living" this time is a gullible
>: > acceptance of rightwing ideology.
>: Nobody said there weren't. The definition disputed is
>: mental "illness" as an objective reality - in the sense that the
>: bodily illness of pneumonia is- rather than a subjective label for
>: difficulties people suffer.
>It's a slippery path to believe in biomedicine but not psychiatric
>biomedicine. If they found a physiological correlation to
>symptoms, would you then accept the diagnosis with a greater degree of
>confidence? Since that is what biomedicine does: it matches symptoms
>causes. You either believe in it or you don't. To believe in it when
>comes to lungs but not when it comes to brains is problematic.
Do you mean that we have to accept in good faith that all aberrant
behaviour is the result of an organic condition? Surely there would
be overwhelming autopsy evidence to support this?