Esteban Laso wrote:
Some very stimulating stuff....
I'm pleased that we have had this discussion going.
By the way -- to those of you who might feel that they need to defend
the medical/diagnostic approaches. . . .
I am not allowed (nor do I wish to) to dictate the end of the
medical/diagnostic approach. I am advocating that those of us who wish to
formulate constructionist postions need to develop a thoroughly constructivst
view of what goes on when the label schizophrenia is put into play.
At the same time, I do not want to have a psychiatrically oriented
behavioral scientist tell me (1) that he/she deserves to have his/her position
accepted because he/she has altruistic motivations [I also may claim such
motives], (2) that his/her use of biological formulations earns him/her the
status of a scientist [I also can claim that status], or (3) that I am doing
damage by raising questions about the utility of the medical/diagnosis story [I
claim that I am doing "good" when I suggest that alternative constructions
should be made available to the public.]
At this very moment, one of my associates -- Glenn Yelich [who contributed
an article on ADHD to JCP -- is engaged in a newspaper exchange concerning his
op-ed piece on the inutility of the ADHD story. I should post the response
signed by about 10 psychiatrists. They pull each of the ploys to which I object
-- above.
Best, Jim Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.capital.net/~mancusoj
A website dedicated to a personal view of Per-
sonal Construct Psychology
--------------597798B1B53C397F68702179
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Esteban Laso wrote:
Some very stimulating
stuff....
I'm pleased that we
have had this discussion going.
By the way -- to those of
you who might feel that they need to defend the medical/diagnostic approaches.
. . .
I am not allowed (nor do
I wish to) to dictate the end of the medical/diagnostic approach. I am
advocating that those of us who wish to formulate constructionist postions
need to develop a thoroughly constructivst view of what goes on when the
label schizophrenia is put into play.
At the same time, I do not want to have a psychiatrically
oriented behavioral scientist tell me (1) that he/she deserves to have
his/her position accepted because he/she has altruistic motivations [I
also may claim such motives], (2) that his/her use of biological formulations
earns him/her the status of a scientist [I also can claim that status],
or (3) that I am doing damage by raising questions about the utility of
the medical/diagnosis story [I claim that I am doing "good" when I suggest
that alternative constructions should be made available to the public.]
At this very moment, one of my associates -- Glenn
Yelich [who contributed an article on ADHD to JCP -- is engaged in a newspaper
exchange concerning his op-ed piece on the inutility of the ADHD story.
I should post the response signed by about 10 psychiatrists. They
pull each of the ploys to which I object -- above.
Best, Jim Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.capital.net/~mancusoj
A website dedicated to a personal view of Per-
sonal Construct Psychology
--------------597798B1B53C397F68702179--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%