Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
My understanding is diseases such as MS may take quite some time to get to a proper diagnosis. I can imagine some with MS may be incorrectly diagnosed with FND and be subjected to "novel psychosocial interventions".
I think this is actually quite unlikely. Quite a lot of people with MS may get ignored because signs are subtle or absent but then they are likely to be categorised as hypochondriac or anxious, not as FND. FND refers to the specific situation where the patient claims to be paralysed but physical examination shows that the nervous supply to the muscle and the muscle itself are working normally. Moreover, the apparent paralysis is not mild in such cases. It is usually complete, so the discrepancy is gross.
In my view it is just as bad to diagnose a psychiatric problem as a non-psychiatric one as the other way around. Both can lead to unnecessary death.
What does worry me about the paper is the suggestion that FND is common. Maybe the Maudsley thinks it is common because they get all the difficult cases referred there. In my experience it is pretty rare, but there is a real problem that has to have some sort of name like this. I am not sure it is useful to consider it a psychiatric problem though, especially when psychiatrists seem not to have a clue about such things.
I