Guardian 'diabetes is biopsychosocial'

A

AR68

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Article in today's Guardian (https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/24/diabetes-ticking-time-bomb-nhs)
about diabetes being a time-bomb for the NHS. This bit:

"Professor Khalida Ismail, professor of psychiatry and medicine at King’s College London and an honorary consultant liaison psychiatrist at King’s College hospital NHS foundation trust. “We have to move away from thinking of diabetes as a medical condition,” she said. “It’s a biopsychosocial condition.”"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
India.

There are, apparently, millions of people in India, thin, active, otherwise healthy people, who are type 2 diabetic.

It's not a lifestyle, or social condition, lifestyle can exacerbate it but the same can be said for many, many medical conditions.

Saying it's not a medical condition is, on the face of it, absurd.
 
Wonko said:
India.

There are, apparently, millions of people in India, thin, active, otherwise healthy people, who are type 2 diabetic.

It's not a lifestyle, or social condition, lifestyle can exacerbate it but the same can be said for many, many medical conditions.

Saying it's not a medical condition is, on the face of it, absurd.
Click to expand...

I'm almost speechless at that bit of the article hence I didn't comment after Ismail's bit.
 
Wonko said:
There are, apparently, millions of people in India, thin, active, otherwise healthy people, who are type 2 diabetic.
Click to expand...
Not just India. There is a subset in Western countries too, this just gets ignored. I put this challenge to a medical researcher decades back, at a major hospital, and they checked the endocrinology department. It happens, and its not explained by many current hypotheses. The current models were mostly developed on obese people and rats.
 
I have a family member who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the ripe old age of four years old.

Given the experiences of most people on this forum I am.sure you can understand just how.much more difficult it was for her parents who had various other friends & family members who were quick to tell them it was they way they fed their child. Even though their older sibling was perfectly healthy.

In those days they had to test the blood sugar levels at least four times a day. You can imagine how a very independent four year old took that - and it can be quite sore.

People who should have been supporting them were judging them. Just what they needed.

Why don't these BPS fanatics go and label the terminally ignorant and judgemental for a change, instead of making the lives of the afflicted even more difficult?
 
alex3619 said:
Typically psychiatrists are doctors.
Click to expand...

Yes, I knew that. But my first thought (from a position of profound ignorance on the subject) would be that a Professor of Medicine was someone who dealt with biomedical illness as a generalist and possibly diagnosed things like sepsis or bacterial infections or viral infections or various kinds of arthritis or orthopaedic issues, but wasn't involved in surgery. So, in that circumstance psychiatry wouldn't come into it at all. But obviously I got it wrong. :laugh: o_O
 
Type 1 diabetes is autoimmune and not lifestyle at all, though this fact is getting lost and some people with it are suffering because of it. The likes of Professor Ismail not making the distinction clear doesn't help.

In type 2 diabetes, a genetic phenotype which gives an evolutionary advantage in marginal environments, they call it "thrifty" because sugars are handled differently for times of hardship, causes a disease when food is plentiful. A bit like fair skinned people in Australia getting skin cancer.

The point is that most people eat too much but their pancreas can cope. In type2 diabetes the pancreas can't deal with it. There is a lifestyle element in that you can eat less, stay a healthy weight, stay fit but most people don't do that either.

It is all very complicated made worse by the fact that diabetes is a number of blood glucose, over it diabetic, under it not, instead of looking at the genetics. So technically you can cure diabetes by lowering your blood sugar level but your pancreas is still not healthy.

No one is looking at the root cause as the money is to be made by treating it. Doesn't surprise me that a BPSer is right in there hoping for a share of the loot, no matter the cost to the patient.
 
AR68 said:
Article in today's Guardian (https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/24/diabetes-ticking-time-bomb-nhs)
about diabetes being a time-bomb for the NHS. This bit:

"Professor Khalida Ismail, professor of psychiatry and medicine at King’s College London and an honorary consultant liaison psychiatrist at King’s College hospital NHS foundation trust. “We have to move away from thinking of diabetes as a medical condition,” she said. “It’s a biopsychosocial condition.”"
Click to expand...
This is all very troubling. There really seems to be put quite an effort into redefining any disease as "biopsychosocial". This is returning to the past. I wonder if the BPS believers are aware of the fact that their ideas are old. And if they're aware, the question is: What does that say us?
 
Inara said:
This is all very troubling. There really seems to be put quite an effort into redefining any disease as "biopsychosocial". This is returning to the past. I wonder if the BPS believers are aware of the fact that their ideas are old. And if they're aware, the question is: What does that say us?
Click to expand...

Yes. There's also a worry in The Guardian, yet again, reporting this rubbish.
 
That's not unreasonable on certain levels but as long as BPS is 99% psychosocial it's not gonna lead to good outcomes, quite the opposite in fact.

They seriously need to clean house on their pet project before forcing it on people who can't object or will have no means of complaints. Because it's guaranteed that there will not be a process to report harm from these treatments, same as ME patients face with GET and CBT.

It's incredibly irresponsible to speak of massively deploying something that has exactly 0 objective evidence to date. Lots of subjective evidence, fine, but that just means a lot more work needs to be done until it can compete with decades of actual research that has produced ample objective evidence and has demonstrable success.

So much damn wishful thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom