Opinion From MUPS to PSS: advancing insight, 2024, Rutten et al

Abstract

Since 2021 experts advocate for the abolishment of the term Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms (MUPS) and the use of Persistent Somatic Symptoms (PSS). This article elucidates the difference between MUPS and PSS, as well as the relation to other relevant concepts like functional syndromes and somatic symptom disorder. Because the term MUPS emphasizes that no somatic cause for the symptoms has been found, it is commonly concluded that the symptoms are 'psychological' in line with the body/mind dualism. This leads to excessive focus on psychosocial contributing factors in MUPS, and too little in PSS in the context of a known somatic disorder. With the term PSS, the question whether there is a somatic cause for the symptoms is not the key issue, but the persistence of the symptoms. This allows for personalised diagnostics and treatment according to the biopsychosocial model.

Account wall, original article in Dutch, https://www.ntvg.nl/artikelen/van-solk-naar-alk

 

Whatever the name, it will come to be used as code for psychogenic.

 

How can you "personalise" treatment before you've adequately demonstrated that it works? Also no other area of medicine has to continually unmake and remake itself in order to be acceptable to patients. When you see the proponents of these ideas having to constantly shift their forms to make them more palatable, it's almost inevitable that there's no substance behind them. The unending mutability of psychosomatic terminology itself demonstrates the weakness of their underlying conceptions.

 

I think they mean "abolition"? And I've seen "abolishment" being used before. Please tell me that it isn't a valid word in any other English-speaking nations!?!

 

I'm always puzzled by the meaning of the word "somatic". It seems to get used in connection with psychogenic explanations for illness but dictionaries give meanings relating to the body not the brain or the mind. I wonder each time I come across "somatic" where psychiatry will pop its head up.

+1

I know a cause for many of my symptoms. But my medical records are so poorly written that doctors assume I'm making it up when I mention my history. I've had eyes rolled at me often.

 

I think this was said in another thread, but it’s “shrödinger’s somatic symptom”. When it is used between professionals, it nearly always means psychogenic, but when a patient asks what it means, the doctor will say physical.

 

There are spin doctors, and then there are spin doctors.

Both types are selling BS. They both know they are selling BS. It's their job to sell BS. One type says "Thank you for smoking". The other says, well, this.

You see the exact same transparent BS from hate groups and organizations, who rebrand their image without changing anything else. They also know they're selling BS.

As long as there are suckers, there will be people selling BS. Don't be a sucker.

 

Yes, short for psychosomatic...

 

hmm articles that use the line 'experts think/advocate/have found...' being deliberately fuzzy about what counts for them under that term.

I can't imagine they are in much if they are 'advocating for' both ie 'the use of PSS instead'. Who are they apparently advocating for? The dodgy/dodgers squad?

Anyway this abstract manages to win at both psychosomatic nut cliche bingo and to never actually complete any of the circles it rambles away pretending it creates then never actually connects the ends.

HOrrifically the only new concept I see they are trying to sell here is to remove (if there ever was any) any of the real scientific psychology aspects of 'situation' that might accidentally have put in, under the guise of suggesting psychiatric origin instead and utter nonsensical/inverted inclusion of the dualism phrase there as they mean purely one-way in that, which is that even the most clearly physical of symptoms will be psychiatric in origin, somehow.

How the heck they've the gall to suggest with a straight face that anyone would or could personalise any part of that - other than in the fishing around based on the top tips of what to make up if you can't wangle it from someone's words in order to pretend-justify your nonsense diagnosis ('childhood trauma' presumption) - must beyond anyone who knows what they are talking about in any area.

Clearly they are about as sausage-machine and stereotype based on face doesn't fit and restrospectively write/find the story to pretend it makes sense so that you can use a 'treatment' aka bombarding with your own bigoted ideas of how people should act and think based not even on normal people's etiquette and certainly not what makes anyone healthy or happy.

And the main reason sickeningly behind this sales job seems to be the idea that MUPS could leave any room for further diagnoses in the future - given it just says 'unexplained', whereas the PSS is trying to snatch the power of the mental health act over people who only have physical anything based on no evidence whatsoever. I do feel the law should be stepping in here. It's so unevidenced it is just a wild accusation under which people's liberty and right to consent and human rights to health could/would be taken from their own hands?

SUrely anyone trying to take that, or encourage others to take that should have to have decent evidence or be censured by some sort of law court. Just because you might be a psychiatrist doesn't give you license to try and extend your powers of insinuation that will affect people's access to healthcare and further investigations, and even further potentially removing liberty to those who don't have a psychiatric issue, nor even psychiatric symptoms?

I don't think it should, given the powers being snatched, be something limited to the medical regulators to be able to prosecute for. And in fact it whiffs of the hang-over of the post office carrying on with their powers of legal prosecution unchecked despite it not really being suitable anymore to have these people unchecked when removing liberties and particularly writing things to extend far past their remit.

Since when did any of these nonsense concepts ever factually confirm anything more than an acronym and a sales pitch claiming (falsely) that these people might have lots of medical appointments 'so shoving them off to IAPT (or the bargain basement non-proper not real psychology but a 're-education course' lates version) would surely save those GPs money'. WHen I don't think that was true either.

Shouldn't you have to prove those physical symptoms have anything at all to do with your area by you know actual findings based on science, before you gte to make such suggestions and insinuations that would affect said people's rights? If not already then clearly there needs to be an act to make it law these people can't expand the reach of their powers beyond those there are evidence for just based on a fake financial-based sales pitch?