United Kingdom: Dr Suzanne O’Sullivan (BPS neurologist)

These people have their heads up each others' backsides. (Echo chamber?! ). Only see what they want to see, without caring to see truth.

 

I think she means us paying attention to our symptoms. They believe that causes us to blow them out of proportion and become disabled.

 

Ah i see what you mean @Sid yes perhaps you're right. just so used to hearing them say we're attention seeking i read that into it. But what i said about the fear/avoidance still stands.

I do resent the 'take to their beds' trope in any case - people rarely go to bed if they arent forced to.

 

I think we all know how the real attention / fear / avoidance cycle works in ME:

Look at me! I’m the doctor with all the answers!
Oh no… my patient doesn’t seem to be getting better. What if I’m wrong after all?
I’ll just ignore all the science being done, blame the patients for being unwell, and say I alone have the answers!
(Repeat.)

Fortunately there is a cure: GET (Graded Epistemology Therapy) and CBT (Challenging Bogus Therapy). Sadly even when those who benefit the most from these treatments are willing to seek help, they may still suffer outbursts of conviction that they alone can cure a serious illness through faith healing. But with time, they can learn not to be professionally or ethically debilitated by these experiences.

 

Yep it’s plain bigotry- anyone saying it needs some self-analysis as if they don’t mean to be a bigot they need to ask why they are being one

 

Omg I think she actually believes that she is ‘the enlightened one’ but then (probably because as she says she didn’t know what medicine was, so I assume science too, then ‘learned by tote’ before hitting some ‘moment she thinks when she met patients) she seems to confuse empathy (an important skillset which is about insight, and arguably necessary/a driver of good scientific discovery, which some just seem unable to attain, not the 'pretending to be nice' those who can't do it like to pretend it is) and proper scientific psychology (which would analyse the nonsense methods of psychosomatic and call them out where it is due) with misogyny/disability bigotry and rhetoric to pretend it isn't just propaganda. By pretend psychologising sticking nasty little made up or misinterpreted or twisted (versions of what I assume she has been privileged to have someone tell or show her about their life) stories on people. Which is a breach of trust, not 'help'.

Is doing that latter bit - looking how you can use them - worse than saying ‘not this objective thing’ (as she asserts as straw man false justification)? Yes, when you do things that lead to epistemic injustice, removing the voice and existence of a person by talking instead of them and when your work focus on stuff that limits access to the most productive and likely forms of research and help

 

At 5:43: "The neurological system is unbelievably amenable to measurement. So you can't objectively measure pain but you can however objectively measure consciousness. [...] Even when she was convulsing and profoundly unconscious, her brainwaves showed a normal waking pattern that we would expect to see in someone who is awake and well. There's only one way that you can be both unconscious and have a waking brainwave pattern and that is if the unconsciousness is psychologically driven rather than being due to a brain disease."

A statement falsified by the existence of complete locked-in syndrome (CLIS) and its EEG findings. See Varieties of the locked-in syndrome (1979, Journal of Neurology)

During the discussion of conversion disorder, I do agree with her statement at 7:10: "There's an awful lot that's hidden between wooly, changeable terms."

 

The poor lady seems very confused. How could unconsciousness be psychologically driven if the mind is turned off (unconscious). She doesn't mean unconscious. I suspect she doesn't really know what she means. (Sorry to be so controversial.)

 

New book by Suzanne O'Sullivan. She's expanding her range.


'The Age of Diagnosis: Sickness, Health and why medicine has gone too far' by Suzanne O'Sullivan (Hardback)

'From autism to allergies, ADHD to long Covid, more people are being labelled with medical conditions than ever before. But can a diagnosis do us more harm than good? The boundaries between sickness & health are being redrawn.

Mental health categories are shifting all the time, radically altering what we consider to be 'normal'. Genetic tests can now detect pathologies decades before people experience symptoms, & sometimes before they're even born. Increased health screening draws more & more people into believing they are unwell.

An accurate diagnosis can bring greater understanding & of course improved treatment. But many diagnoses aren't as definitive as we think. In some cases they risk turning healthy people into patients. Drawing on the stories of real people, as well as decades of clinical practice & the latest medical research, Dr Suzanne O'Sullivan overturns long held assumptions & reframes how we think about health.'

https://coles-books.co.uk/the-age-of-diagnosis-by-suzanne-o-sullivan-hardback



Gawd, it's reviewers (see amazon) are calling it 'Brave' and 'Compassionate'. Sounds like they've just recycled reviews of Showalter's Hystories from 1997. Taking pot shots at sick people sells so well.


.

 

Yes. My illness which has literally left me bedridden and unable to speak would be better if I just ignored my diagnosis. Thanks Suzanne.

Goodreads Link to give the book a rating if wanted.

 

I have a real question about professionals using stories about individuals that are often pretty identifiable and might well not be strictly accurate in the sense that would be said individual’s description they’d agree with (at least).

When reporting figures or doing research there is always a minimum number for any subgroup when reporting - normally 5. So eg in a staff survey if a dept was small or only had a few females you wouldn’t report the score for ‘how satisfied were you with…’ because they are identifiable

It’s even worse if the facts have been embroidered and made more public .

I haven’t read this but I’ve read past ones along these lines and noted the big difference between them and eg the Oliver Sacks style where the patient insight was very much respected and part of it vs objectified (I think that’s the right term where you aren’t taking their insight or word on their life as a serious starting point?).

This isn’t like talking about someone’s cardiology history and no one around them would know they were the person who had a stent but it was something else technical that worked instead. Or something to do with blood or cells most laypersons wouldn’t notice the difference in treatment someone had. And can all be technically annotated and checked . With limited info on the rest of who they are but it tending to be accurate and relevant (like them being keen to return to their boxing career)

having read the thread on the Declaration of Helsinki update recently I’m now even more intrigued about the ethics covering these types of things

 

You’re absolutely right @bobbler. A patient usually can’t choose their physician psychiatrist, psychologist based upon foreknowledge of how safe ethical trustworthy or in fact prejudiced unscrupulous and exploitative they might prove to be as with this author.

I would like to see some negative consequences for the healthcare practitioner turned author like this one. The ones who use the suffering of their patients as material. Then not only profit off of the suffering of their patients, but also violate their trust and privacy, exposing their bodies and minds to public view, all whilst explicitly directing the audience to view the patient in their most painful vulnerable moments with the harshest gaze. Encouraging and compounding the prejudices against their whole personhood and those like them too.

I don’t know what the process for consent to use of a patients confidential medical materials are. Maybe there isn’t even one. If there is, I do not think that with the power imbalance there it can really be said to hold up.

Additionally for this author her content amounts to abuse and no one can freely consent to an authority figure manipulating public perceptions against them.

 

No one.