Ronald Bailey | May 16, 2005
I know it's a serious matter, but I can't help but chortle at the above headline on the press release about a new study on social anxiety disorder in the journal General Hospital Psychiatry. People who are afraid to interact with other people avoid doctors? Astonishing! Who would have thought it?
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Great! I can see this leading to mandatory doctor visits right after we all get our National ID cards.
Patients with social anxiety disorder are less likely to
visit their primary care doctors than people with other psychiatric
disorders like depression, or patients without mental
health disorders, according to new research in the journal
General Hospital Psychiatry.
New research? They are only just now getting around to realizing
that people without mental disorders tend to go to their doctors
less than people who are nuts? I think any doctor could have told
them that.
Someone tell House!
What ever happened to just getting loaded on quaaludes and booze before visiting the doctor...?
Anyone else find the acronym for this disorder funny? Some guy at the AMA was going over a bunch of social-interaction averse cases, looking to name the disorder something, thinking "aaw... these people are so... sad... S.A.D.! Jackpot!" har har
I thought SAD was the cutesy term for Seasonal Affective
Disorder, the "winter blahs" that can be remedied with UV
lamps.
Is any condition that can be treated by psychology a "SAD"
candidate?
"Patients with the disorder were also significantly more likely
to abuse alcohol and drugs than other psychiatric patients, Dr. Raz
Gross and colleagues at Columbia University found.
�Patients might be self-medicating�using alcohol as a social
lubricant,� Gross says."
I guess social lubricants are the next step after succumbing to
beer-goggles.
Of course, as libertarians the only thing we really need to know
is that the whole concept of mental illness is a sham.
Right?
This is always the difficulty with research that attempts to
_quantify_ things we _qualitatively_ believe to be true. I would
assume the H&R crowd would be most appreciative of this
research, as it can result in: a) the qualitative belief being
shown to be false, or b) the quantitative effect being small enough
that no public policy measures are needed. Case a) is always most
fun, as it allows you to say "Hey, TV actually makes you _smarter_,
you jerk." Case b) is more along the lines of "Hey, potheads never
hurt nobody, you jackass." Sometimes, of course, case b) yields
results like this, suggesting that a certain group of people is
receiving inadequate medical attention, for whatever reason. (See
also the HIV/AIDS studies of your choice, and the stats via class,
race, gender, and sexuality.)
Anon
MNG,
It's a slippery slope. You use social lubricants in the hopes of
using personal lubricants.
Man, I'll bet it really must suck for those who suffer from Hypochondria and Social Anxiety Disorder.
I can relate to this problem. Someone once tried to get me to join the Optimists' Club, but I said, "Nah, I doubt I'll get anything out of it."
Of course, as libertarians the only thing we really need to
know is that the whole concept of mental illness is a
sham.
This may sound like a dumb question, how many libertarians really
completely agree with Szasz? I've never met one, myself, or read
anything I can recall by someone who agreed with him on that point.
I certainly think psychiatrists have a dangerous amount of power,
but I definitely think insanity exists.
I've always wondered:
Why would anyone start, let alone join, something called The
Optimists' Club.
What do they do? Sit around and talk about how life is a basket of
candy and blowjobs?
Geek:
Nono, we talk about how life is a bucket of beer and blowjobs.
Of course, as libertarians the only thing we really need to
know is that the whole concept of mental illness is a
sham.
Kidding aside, Thoreau, we can all agree that while someone's
mental illness may not be their fault, it certainly isn't
mine.
Nor WalMart's, nor BigOil, no Dubya's.
If Mr. Show taught me anything, it is that all major
transactions in life are decided by a series of blowjobs. That's
not optimism, that's realism, people.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go apply some ChapStick; I'm
getting my car inspected today.
"This may sound like a dumb question, how many libertarians
really completely agree with Szasz?"
As a layman, I've always scratched my head in regards to Szasz. Why
does he not believe mental disease exist, and why do libertarians
alledged like him so much? Does the idea that functionalist causes
for behavior somehow undermines free-will?
"In the study of 207 patients at a New York City teaching
hospital, patients with social anxiety disorder made only four
visits per year to their primary care physician, compared with
nearly seven visits a year for other psychiatric patients and six
visits for well patients."
Who are these people? I have not been to a doctor of any kind in
over 10 years! What is wrong with me?!
As the article says "six visits [per year] for well patients." I must be about 60 visits shy of the 'norm' if I am well!
As I understand it, Szasz's position is that "mental illness" is a false category. There are brain disorders (which are physical illnesses), and there are behavior problems (which may or may not be caused by such illnesses). The term "mental illness" blurs the distinction between the two.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245