Cochrane Database Syst Review - Psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders in adults (2020) Ganslv et al.

Wikipedia weighs in on 'functional':

Their bolding.

And as we are aware psychiatry is the field that completely obscures any meaning at all. Like so many other terms used by them. It is an utter failure to even take their own discipline seriously.

The only thing that matters (or so it seems at this point) is that psychiatry be seen as primary. The Leader of the team in all things MUS. They are serious about being important. This is their myopia. Interpreting everything as a mental health issue first because it's to their benefit.

 

That seems to be a highly misleading description. The dual use has been long recognised. It' hard to see how they can use that first "is" with a clear conscience.

 

to me the description seems pretty neutral and very carefully trying to avoid endorsing the claim that the functional disorder is psychogenic. I also think, given the wide range with which people use all these terms and the degree to which they are or are not comparable to related terms, it would be impossible to come up with a definition that is fully "accurate" in how the terms are used. Also, the definition depends on what is meant by other terms--for example "medical condition." That could be interpreted narrowly, as in strictly pathophysiological, or in the more general sense of a physical illness.

 

I disagree with that. Reference should be made to the alternative way in which the term might, in any particular instance, be intended. The word is ambiguous. The ambiguity should be explained.

 

An explanation of how the term has been used and perhaps abused should come in the next paragraph. Defining terms that have no fixed meaning is pretty much of an impossible task.

 

Notably, "medical condition" forwards onto the "disease" Wikipedia page.