i recently read about the navy submariner who turned his 9mm on civilians then himself. I wont at all try to deny the fact he was likely mentally ill.
I do want to raise a question...
Cause and Effect (ABCs of causal relations)
(I need to work in an explanation of correlation vs causation I made the heading right before calling it quits for a bit)
how can you hope to effectively treat anything or solve a problem if the root cause isnt correctly associated with the effect? in the age where its said to be a knowledge economy there becomes an incentive to scramble minds. from a less out there stance that ultimately leads to the same conclusion.
any college business ethics course will teach the ethical actions of a corporation are to profit and its stakeholders.
is medicine and psychology/psychiatric/psychological services so far as eval and treatment usually a corporate endeavor?
how about the dissemination of information on these subjects to the public? most people I know seem to get their news from corporate sources. sites appearing to be authoritative like psych today are also corporate.
within the bounds of whats taught as ethical acts of corps and as applied to healthcare/ corp medicine it would see almost unethical to attempt to cure anything or to disseminate information that allows avoiding things like personality disorders and or pstd. A preventative approach would equal patients never seen and a curative approach is a reoccurring revenue and or profit lost.
psych is probably the highest profit margin per patient especially if you already have a large medical facility.
the facilities overhead will be there regardless. by setting aside a room in said facility for psych services what would your marginal cost per patient be?
if you are going through gauze, splints, stents and bandages my laymen ass would argue something is wrong with how you are practicing mental health care both as a physician and organization. if anyone has a compelling argument for how a psych services allocation could end up less profitable per patient id love to hear it. I cant see it but am open to logically constructed arguments.
the fact that we have legalized bonuses for doctors from pharma companies would seem to further incite less than ethical behavior (from a non corp general view on ethics or medical ethics standpoint) in theory one would never diagnose to prescribe but history has shown us that especially with little oversight or fear of negative consequence many humans will act in unethical ways. when there is a financial incentive to do so and the aforementioned hold true id argue it is surely happening every day at a health care clinic near you.
further to the point, many if not most psych medicines dont have a completely understood method of action. which probably still makes them better than the surgical method of labotomy but may also contribute to that unethical behavior because the risk of death is usually low. if there is a death its usually by the patient's own hand.
so if you rx this mystery method drug, you might get a bonus and what? if it makes it worse your org is even more likely to get either voluntary or court ordered reoccuring revenue and profit?
but the treatment is losesly to not at all understood? or possibly like numbing rather than treating a wound?
zooming back out, numbing or pretending to treat with a medicine is also likely to be far more profitable per patient. its a 15min how do you feel your meds are working session vs lets get to how you got so fucked up and see if we can heal it session that might go an hr or two per visit.
this seems all well and good if you own a health care or pharma corp but even with out court orderes for drugging, pretty shit from the vantage point of jill mctraumatized or average joe mcmessedup.
i see potential evence to this occurring as sites like psych today and corp news insisting most things have a root and most influential cause in genetics. ie blame the genes. its perfect from the perspective of gain and retain. logicaly ive taken dumps less non sequentir. if the cause is genetic, unless those pills are crisper or nano bot or even if talk therapy and its associated lower margins are employed... how is this ever going to cure anything? it cant so of course keep coming back next month. in the mean time what we didnt mention assures your child ends up being a future patient.
as far as i know genetics have not been shown to do more than create a probability when it comes to complex behaviors. also if a complex trait is geneticly influenced its so far been multiple genes that create the probility. aka sci has yet to find "the gay gene" theres also an entirely different take on genetics that most of the public probably has never heard of its called epigenetics.
the viewpoint pushed by corp sources in how genes work might as well be what Friedrich Miescher was able to reason out in 1860.
what science eventually figured out is genes can go active or inactive through out life and those changes might be heritable to ones offspring. or in otherwords claiming anything is genetic and implying thats set at conception in stone and remains so is a blatent lie to disingenuous at best. viewed from the gain and maintain as to patients and profit for corps it would make a lot of sense not to inform the public of this not hidden but not mentioned advancement in understanding.
I only became aware of this around 2011. I was at ndsu and one of the students in my french class had a mutual interest in building computers. He was dating a girl who was post grad at another university and studying epigenetics. If not for that and a love of knowledge and sci I probably would be just as clueless as average joe laymen.
one more thing important to note is most feelings humans have are the brain releasing chemicals (hormones) in response to stimuli. if an over abundance or frequency of particular hormones can cause epigenetic changes as we know exposure to other chemicals through life can then things like abuse and related stress or even just the stress of modern middle or lower class hrs and exposure at work may cause heritble damage to ones family line and not just brain damage but ...genetic damage and or a cycle of normalized parent to child abusive behavior may infact become influenced by genetics with the true danger being the more causal factor of learned behavior being amplified by flipped then passed genetic changes.
is there further evidence we are throwing profitable but essentially pixydust to numbing agents at patients?
the apa which might have corp influence but overall has a purpose of collecting and or storing scientific data on psychiatric conditions and treatments...
according to the apa parents who subject their children to verbal abuse and emotional neglect make that child 3x to 4x more likely to end up with a cluster b disorder (it might have been more specific, it might have said borderline, as usual, this is all top of my head typed. my memory isnt quite eidetic(but whos is?))
if we back up a bit in either classic image of genetics or epigenetics, it shouldnt be hard to see how parents either set before birth or influence after how a child turns out.
freud jung and as far as i know most prominante figures in that world have even come to the conclusion that formative years end up setting things like sexuality. who is more prominante during those years than a parent?
yet it seems the message du jour in the class of average jill and joe that parents are only responsible for feeding their spawn until 18 everything else is genetic and heres a pill to treat it. it seems readily aprent who is pushing this drek.