Nearly all of the articles written by scientists about depression and mental illness are correspondences, meaning that they try to find a correlation between two variables. For example, studies have found that drinking water out of a plastic bottle that has been sitting in a hot car can cause cancer. This contributes to their rhetorical approach to depression. They are desperate to give victims of depression answers, so they try to find links to it. One study has linked tobacco usage to depression; another has linked downsyndrome with anxiety. This says something specific, which is that scientists are all about quantitative approaches. This is proved by the following quote written in a report by a scientists showing correlation between personality and treatment, “To investigate the associations between the Big Five personality traits and depression diagnosis, logistic regression analyses were conducted. The association of the Big Five personality domains with the severity and age of onset of depression was examined using linear regression analyses.” After they test the personality, age, and level of depression, they will have numerical data to use for their reports to back up their thesis.
Scientists’ articles are written similar to lab reports, complete with tables or graphs to display the quantitative data. Throughout the reports they continually refer to the tables and what the data in those tables shows in regards to whatever they are trying to show correlation. This being said, their approach to depression and mental illness is extremely treatment based and experimental, evidence is provided by this quote, “The outcomes of this study are of considerable clinical relevance, because they suggest the value of the involvement of Big Five personality diagnostics in the treatment of late-life depression. A number of studies which linked their results to clinical practice highlighted the influence of personality characteristics on treatment outcome. For example, higher levels of Neuroticism were reported to predict slower recovery from late-life depression.” They try to find a correlation between depression and personality through experiments in an attempt to customize the best treatment for each patient depending on their personality. They directly test and analyze biological aspect of the body in order to find out what treatment will give the best results. Which is why their write-ups on mental illness is like a lab report. They have this approach because scientists can easily make sense of things if they are concrete and are backed by scientific evidence. This is why they have quantitative data in their reports. Their findings are also quantitative, for example this is the conclusion the scientists found after the study, “Consistent with our hypotheses, Neuroticism, Extraversion and Conscientiousness were found to be associated with the presence of a depression diagnosis in later life. The same pattern was found for severity of depression, contrary to findings in a comparable previous study.” Psychiatrists write their papers about the subject like a lab report as well, however their writing style is completely different.
Psychiatrists fail to include charts and tables in their papers. This is because in order to use a graph or table, you need quantitative data, which is what the psychiatrists are lacking. Their diagnosis of depression and mental illness are strictly based on behavior and symptoms rather than quantitative tests, there is evidence of this given by this quote, “Psychiatrists used medical language and focused almost solely upon symptoms of depression and the agreed diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis.” Psychiatrists diagnose depression by following their intuition and clinical impression, so there wouldn’t be any numbers from tests or scales to include in their papers. There is however diagnostic criteria composed in a book that psychiatrists refer to in order to diagnose a patient with the correct disorder. However, they sometimes go against this “guide line” because they feel that sometimes their instincts and clinical impression are better at diagnosing patients than a book is because they feel strongly that each patient is incredibly unique. Psychiatrists argue in their reports that these people develop depression because of life changing events rather than a biological defect. The following evidence that supports this is a quote from a psychiatrist, “I talk to really many patients with something which I would call crises or existential problems. But I have difficulties accepting the medical concept of depression because I think—perhaps the sensitivity is OK, but the specificity I think is absolutely hopeless—if I am trying to distinguish from normal life crises.” They have this approach because they have been trained to analyze patient’s initial reactions and behaviors to things, and concentrate on the way they think rather than the anatomy and physiology of their body. This is why they choose to not conduct experiments with quantitative data and biological studies. They choose to conduct qualitative experiments and record patient's’ responses and behaviors.
Some people may say that scientists write in a more factual manner than psychiatrists do. One general practitioner writes, “Psychiatric diagnoses are not valid because they are based on symptoms rather than on objective tests.” However, this is not entirely true; scientists only approach, and report about depression in a quantitative manner but it does not mean that it is more factual or credible than psychiatrists. Both psychiatrists and scientists have credible things to say in their own research and writing styles. However, sadly society tends to lean toward the scientists’ approach because they write in a quantitative manner. They compose experiments and collect data, enter the data into tables, and include them in their reports. The psychiatrists write in a more qualitative manner, use a lot of medical terminology, and do not use any quantitative data to back up their diagnoses in their reports. This does not lessen psychiatrists credibility, it only shows a different approach to their research, diagnosis, and reports. These differences in the way these two fields of study report on depression does not make one more credible over the other. It would seem that the scientists’ reports would be more accurate and believable given all of the data, however the statistics suggest that psychiatrists have a higher success rate than doctors. This being said, psychiatrists and scientists/doctors can learn something from each other. Psychiatrists need some sort of quantitative data to make them seem more credible and legitimate to patients, and scientists/doctors need to pay less attention to the medical facts and start listening to the patient about what they feel more. When these two professions combine to work together on curing patients with depression, the suicide and suicide attempts will surely drop.
Works Cited:
Davidsen, Annette S., and Christina F. Fosgerau. "What is Depression? Psychiatrists' and GPs' Experiences of Diagnosis and the Diagnostic Process."International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being 9 (2014)ProQuest. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
Hall, Harriet. "Psychiatry-Bashing « Science-Based Medicine." Psychiatry-Bashing « Science-Based Medicine. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016. <https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/psychiatry-bashing/>.
Koorevaar, A.m.l., H.c. Comijs, A.d.f. Dhondt, H.w.j. Van Marwijk, R.c. Van Der Mast, P. Naarding, R.c. Oude Voshaar, and M.l. Stek. "Big Five Personality and Depression Diagnosis, Severity and Age of Onset in Older Adults." Journal of Affective Disorders 151.1 (2013): 178-85. Web.
Scientists’ articles are written similar to lab reports, complete with tables or graphs to display the quantitative data. Throughout the reports they continually refer to the tables and what the data in those tables shows in regards to whatever they are trying to show correlation. This being said, their approach to depression and mental illness is extremely treatment based and experimental, evidence is provided by this quote, “The outcomes of this study are of considerable clinical relevance, because they suggest the value of the involvement of Big Five personality diagnostics in the treatment of late-life depression. A number of studies which linked their results to clinical practice highlighted the influence of personality characteristics on treatment outcome. For example, higher levels of Neuroticism were reported to predict slower recovery from late-life depression.” They try to find a correlation between depression and personality through experiments in an attempt to customize the best treatment for each patient depending on their personality. They directly test and analyze biological aspect of the body in order to find out what treatment will give the best results. Which is why their write-ups on mental illness is like a lab report. They have this approach because scientists can easily make sense of things if they are concrete and are backed by scientific evidence. This is why they have quantitative data in their reports. Their findings are also quantitative, for example this is the conclusion the scientists found after the study, “Consistent with our hypotheses, Neuroticism, Extraversion and Conscientiousness were found to be associated with the presence of a depression diagnosis in later life. The same pattern was found for severity of depression, contrary to findings in a comparable previous study.” Psychiatrists write their papers about the subject like a lab report as well, however their writing style is completely different.
Psychiatrists fail to include charts and tables in their papers. This is because in order to use a graph or table, you need quantitative data, which is what the psychiatrists are lacking. Their diagnosis of depression and mental illness are strictly based on behavior and symptoms rather than quantitative tests, there is evidence of this given by this quote, “Psychiatrists used medical language and focused almost solely upon symptoms of depression and the agreed diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis.” Psychiatrists diagnose depression by following their intuition and clinical impression, so there wouldn’t be any numbers from tests or scales to include in their papers. There is however diagnostic criteria composed in a book that psychiatrists refer to in order to diagnose a patient with the correct disorder. However, they sometimes go against this “guide line” because they feel that sometimes their instincts and clinical impression are better at diagnosing patients than a book is because they feel strongly that each patient is incredibly unique. Psychiatrists argue in their reports that these people develop depression because of life changing events rather than a biological defect. The following evidence that supports this is a quote from a psychiatrist, “I talk to really many patients with something which I would call crises or existential problems. But I have difficulties accepting the medical concept of depression because I think—perhaps the sensitivity is OK, but the specificity I think is absolutely hopeless—if I am trying to distinguish from normal life crises.” They have this approach because they have been trained to analyze patient’s initial reactions and behaviors to things, and concentrate on the way they think rather than the anatomy and physiology of their body. This is why they choose to not conduct experiments with quantitative data and biological studies. They choose to conduct qualitative experiments and record patient's’ responses and behaviors.
Some people may say that scientists write in a more factual manner than psychiatrists do. One general practitioner writes, “Psychiatric diagnoses are not valid because they are based on symptoms rather than on objective tests.” However, this is not entirely true; scientists only approach, and report about depression in a quantitative manner but it does not mean that it is more factual or credible than psychiatrists. Both psychiatrists and scientists have credible things to say in their own research and writing styles. However, sadly society tends to lean toward the scientists’ approach because they write in a quantitative manner. They compose experiments and collect data, enter the data into tables, and include them in their reports. The psychiatrists write in a more qualitative manner, use a lot of medical terminology, and do not use any quantitative data to back up their diagnoses in their reports. This does not lessen psychiatrists credibility, it only shows a different approach to their research, diagnosis, and reports. These differences in the way these two fields of study report on depression does not make one more credible over the other. It would seem that the scientists’ reports would be more accurate and believable given all of the data, however the statistics suggest that psychiatrists have a higher success rate than doctors. This being said, psychiatrists and scientists/doctors can learn something from each other. Psychiatrists need some sort of quantitative data to make them seem more credible and legitimate to patients, and scientists/doctors need to pay less attention to the medical facts and start listening to the patient about what they feel more. When these two professions combine to work together on curing patients with depression, the suicide and suicide attempts will surely drop.
Works Cited:
Davidsen, Annette S., and Christina F. Fosgerau. "What is Depression? Psychiatrists' and GPs' Experiences of Diagnosis and the Diagnostic Process."International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being 9 (2014)ProQuest. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
Hall, Harriet. "Psychiatry-Bashing « Science-Based Medicine." Psychiatry-Bashing « Science-Based Medicine. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016. <https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/psychiatry-bashing/>.
Koorevaar, A.m.l., H.c. Comijs, A.d.f. Dhondt, H.w.j. Van Marwijk, R.c. Van Der Mast, P. Naarding, R.c. Oude Voshaar, and M.l. Stek. "Big Five Personality and Depression Diagnosis, Severity and Age of Onset in Older Adults." Journal of Affective Disorders 151.1 (2013): 178-85. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment