I don't like the idea because while it may possibly be.a ttrue concept it may not be a valid one. I know I can look nack at states when I had high psychopathology with or without distress.
I've had the words "lacking insight" used by a psychiatrist. He used those words to try to get me to accept my treatment unconditionally. In a sense lacking insight means not understanding psychopathology usually when experiencing a crisis but afterwards too. It implies the person somehow lacks understanding and I imkagine it is one of those common tools of subjugation used in clinical practice by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.
An individual who doesn't know they are mentally ill because not recognising it is an illness can be part of an illness is something which I disagree with because it is too easily misued to subjugate free choice by indiviudals, choices which people are born with as inalienable rights but which are taken by psychiaytry.
It may be psychiatrists and the psychiatric profession which lack insight. The biological differences may be differences rather than deficits. Many of the problems may be related to things like human behaviour, types of human, problems of culture and society.
The hegemony lacked insight when they pathologised black slaves who kept on running away. Admittedly this wasn't codified but it is an example of the fallacy of the concept of insight by reversing it.
A person can understand psychopathology and distress, disability and flourishing, and other concepts within the construct of illness.
They can also understand that the science of labelling is reasonable for some diagnoses but lacks in true science. They can understand that the treatment is usually bollocks too. They can understand the illness might not be a real illness, an insight lacking in far too many psychiatrists.
No comments:
Post a Comment