In medicine, one of the crucial moments of the therapeutic process is the diagnosis. In fact, only after a certain disorder has been identified it is possible to cure it by referring to the entire corpus of scientific knowledge about it have been accumulated over time. Put simply, once diagnosed with a fracture is known for example that it should apply to treat a fractured limb plaster that building up the bone so that its Internal can slowly grow and function of art can be recovered. It 's interesting to note that the diagnosis "break" to allow the doctor to get treatment without his having to rack your brain on too much because of the fracture. That has fallen or slipped, or that he finished poorly in an attempt to achieve a Guinness Book of Records, the solution will always be the same. Not only that once our arms or our legs will be healed easily we break them up again ... ... Or so we hope:)
The best informed will now thinking, "It 's osteoporosis? What do we do?" They must have thought at this point to another label diagnostics, identifying some form of predisposition to have fractures. I say "some form", because of "osteoporosis" as a "fracture" and virtually any other diagnosis there are many varieties. Where a patient had to bring in multiple fractures in a short period of time the doctor had him in care may have to worry not only treatment of the individual fractures as well as taking charge of osteoporosis. Why do I dwell
(so to speak) on these physical ailments, medical skills?
wanted examples that clearly show how the diagnosis is neither more nor less than an instrument, a step in the overall therapeutic process. The therapist once a diagnosis is able to reconnect the symptoms reported by the patient to a more or less specific set of scientific knowledge (or at least supposed to be), and click or so forms of therapy that they consider most appropriate for treatment of the disorder itself.
I also wanted to point out the important concepts: a thing is the noise ("evil in itself), another diagnosis (the label that attaches to the clinical disorder"), another (or others ) the causes of the disorder itself (" etiology ") also remains to be considered once asked a certain diagnosis (not always reliable, sometimes only probable), and then once assuming the presence of a disorder and, if possible etiologies of the same, the clinician will still have to choose between multiple forms of therapy before the patient can come to obtain its long-awaited recovery.
What are these details?
To begin with, should warn us than an error that sometimes even the world of medicine, which is to use diagnostic labels to identify disorders related to a patient. Thinking about the past, we have the example of the "leper", or the 'plague', or, until recently we knew we did not have to be careful to speak of "disabled person" and not disabled (now perhaps we would say "differently able "but this is, so to speak, another story.) Within the risk of mental disorders and the frequency of this confusion is even greater:" ... let it be that he is .... " .. a depressed, "" a drug addict ... "" ... a schizophrenic ", etc. etc.. Diagnostic label is totally inadequate if only to identify a disease, let alone to describe a person, even without considering the effects of social stigma arising from this identification (already mentioned in previous post of identification of the patient in a medical diagnosis is sometimes an obstacle to his recovery (es: "sono fatta così, sono anoressica").
In conclusion, it is true that a good diagnosis it greatly simplifies things when we want to have information all'andamento prevedibile medio di un disturbo mentale, ma ciononostante perché il disturbo mentale di un singolo paziente possa davvero essere curato la diagnosi di quello stesso disturbo non sarà che una piccola parte delle molte conoscenze che assieme al paziente dovremo acquisire non solo sulle specifiche caratteristiche del suo disturbo in particolare ma anche e soprattutto su di lui (il paziente stesso) più in generale nonché sul suo mondo "biopsicosociale".
The best informed will now thinking, "It 's osteoporosis? What do we do?" They must have thought at this point to another label diagnostics, identifying some form of predisposition to have fractures. I say "some form", because of "osteoporosis" as a "fracture" and virtually any other diagnosis there are many varieties. Where a patient had to bring in multiple fractures in a short period of time the doctor had him in care may have to worry not only treatment of the individual fractures as well as taking charge of osteoporosis. Why do I dwell
(so to speak) on these physical ailments, medical skills?
wanted examples that clearly show how the diagnosis is neither more nor less than an instrument, a step in the overall therapeutic process. The therapist once a diagnosis is able to reconnect the symptoms reported by the patient to a more or less specific set of scientific knowledge (or at least supposed to be), and click or so forms of therapy that they consider most appropriate for treatment of the disorder itself.
I also wanted to point out the important concepts: a thing is the noise ("evil in itself), another diagnosis (the label that attaches to the clinical disorder"), another (or others ) the causes of the disorder itself (" etiology ") also remains to be considered once asked a certain diagnosis (not always reliable, sometimes only probable), and then once assuming the presence of a disorder and, if possible etiologies of the same, the clinician will still have to choose between multiple forms of therapy before the patient can come to obtain its long-awaited recovery.
What are these details?
To begin with, should warn us than an error that sometimes even the world of medicine, which is to use diagnostic labels to identify disorders related to a patient. Thinking about the past, we have the example of the "leper", or the 'plague', or, until recently we knew we did not have to be careful to speak of "disabled person" and not disabled (now perhaps we would say "differently able "but this is, so to speak, another story.) Within the risk of mental disorders and the frequency of this confusion is even greater:" ... let it be that he is .... " .. a depressed, "" a drug addict ... "" ... a schizophrenic ", etc. etc.. Diagnostic label is totally inadequate if only to identify a disease, let alone to describe a person, even without considering the effects of social stigma arising from this identification (already mentioned in previous post of identification of the patient in a medical diagnosis is sometimes an obstacle to his recovery (es: "sono fatta così, sono anoressica").
Oggi il paradigma di studio più accreditato delle cause all'origine di un disturbo mentale prevede che esse siano di tre diversi ordini: "bio"-"psico"-"sociali". In sostanza, perché ci sia un disturbo mentale dev'essere presente una combinazione di questi tre fattori. Grossomodo, la parte biologica fa riferimento alla base genetica di ognuno, che determina punti di forza ma anche di vulnerabilità, a seconda delle esperienze con cui poi l'individuo si dovrà confrontare (esagerando, immaginate un individuo con un comodo salvagente "in dotazione genetica", e quanto diversamente questo gli sarebbe d'aiuto a seconda del suo doversi confrontare con il mare o con un deserto); la parte psicologica consiste, sempre grossomodo, nel modo in cui ognuno di noi ha imparato a far fronte a determinate esperienze, modo magari adatto e quanto mai di successo nella stragrande maggioranza dei casi, ma, per esempio, insufficiente di fronte ad un terremoto (o anche davanti ad altre esperienze di vita meno estreme); la parte sociale è relativa infine alla maggiore o minore efficacia con cui le reti sociali in cui siamo inseriti possono aiutarci o ostacolarci nel far fronte a determinate esperienze.
Diagnosi di disturbi mentali identiche almeno limitatamente all'etichetta (ad es. "depressione maggiore") possono avere eziologie anche molto diverse tra di loro, avere un diverso tipo biopsicogenetico substrate, and require very different treatments with each other. Currently, a clinician (psychologist or psychotherapist) who wants to really make a good diagnosis should be very careful to identify the label (or labels) Diagnostic best among those available, study history, family history, biographical information, the patient's personality structure exclude any biological, and only then can choose between a good approximation of the possible therapies for this disorder that its most effective for that individual patient.
In conclusion, it is true that a good diagnosis it greatly simplifies things when we want to have information all'andamento prevedibile medio di un disturbo mentale, ma ciononostante perché il disturbo mentale di un singolo paziente possa davvero essere curato la diagnosi di quello stesso disturbo non sarà che una piccola parte delle molte conoscenze che assieme al paziente dovremo acquisire non solo sulle specifiche caratteristiche del suo disturbo in particolare ma anche e soprattutto su di lui (il paziente stesso) più in generale nonché sul suo mondo "biopsicosociale".
0 comments:
Post a Comment