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
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?
