#medical model

[neurotypicalabusesurvivor]

This is a friendly reminder that none disabled people often do benefit from the same accommodations disabled people benefit from.

#mobility issues #leftism #mental illness #autism #medical model #mobility aid #social model of disability

[gothhabiba]

Although the chemical imbalance model remains the dominant cultural story of depression in the United States (France, Lysaker, & Robinson, 2007), its validity has been publicly questioned with increasing frequency in recent years (e.g., Angell, 2011a, 2011b; Begley, 2010; Spiegel, 2012; Stahl, 2012). Scientists have long understood the “low serotonin” explanation of depression to be unsubstantiated (Kendler & Schaffner, 2011; Kirsch, 2010; Lacasse & Leo, 2005), and psychiatry is currently attempting to distance itself from this pseudoscientific notion. Prominent biomedical model proponents now use adjectives like “antiquated” (Insel, 2011) and “outmoded” (Coyle, cited in Spiegel, 2012) to describe the chemical imbalance story, thereby creating the misleading impression that this notion has only recently been exposed as mistaken. Pies (2011) proclaimed that the chemical imbalance theory is an “urban legend” that was never taken seriously by thoughtful psychiatrists. “In the past 30 years,” he asserts, “I don't believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim, except perhaps to mock it.” This declaration might come as a surprise to former APA president Steven Sharfstein who explicitly defended the validity of the chemical imbalance theory on NBC's Today Show (Bell, 2005b) in the wake of actor Tom Cruise's infamous remarks criticizing psychiatry (Bell, 2005a). Patients with mental disorders might also be surprised to learn that some doctors use the chemical imbalance story simply as a convenient metaphor for facilitating drug treatment and/or attempting to reduce stigma. Until recently, the American public had little reason to doubt the veracity of chemical imbalance claims promoted by the popular media, health websites, patient advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and other reputable medical authorities. Given recent high-profile revelations about the limitations of the chemical imbalance story, biomedical model advocates may face increasing pressure to disseminate accurate information about mental disorder rather than persist in the promotion of an unfounded but politically and economically useful scientific caricature.

–Brett J. Deacon, “The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research.” Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013), 846–861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.007

#psychiatry #antipsych #antipsychiatry #biomedical model #medical model #readings

[disabledunitypunk]

A Conversation About Demedicalization and Disorders

Let's talk about demedicalization. What is demedicalization? The Open Education Sociology Dictionary defines demedicalization as "The process by which a behavior or condition, once labeled 'sick', becomes defined as natural or normal." It is the process of normalizing a trait of the body or brain or behavior as a normal variance of human existence, rather than a pathological variance in need of treatment or correction.

Put simply, it is no longer looking at something as a sickness in need of treatment, but rather just another way of existing.

Some background info that is needed: the social and medical models of disability.

The medical model posits that the existence of disability is predicated on inherent pathological differences in the bodymind, that it is active physical limitations, some of which can be treated or "corrected", that make a person disabled.

The social model, on the other hand, states that is is a societal lack of access and accommodations that disables a person, and that a person would no longer be functionally disabled were these access barriers to be removed. Keep in mind that this does not mean they believe that people would not still have "impairments" that affect how they are able to function, but that it defines disability as the disadvantages caused by an ableist society treating impairments as needing to be "fixed" rather than accommodated. I defines being abled as being able to participate in society to the full extent an impaired individual wishes to.

I believe in a mixed social-medical model. I believe that some conditions are inherently disabling and that seeking medical treatment for them, while it should be up to disabled individuals, is helpful and good. My ADHD, for example, will still limit my participation in society to the extent I want to, without medication. You could consider medication an accommodation, but there's also the example of my chronic pain and fatigue and POTS that often keeps me housebound or bedbound. There may not be a treatment for that, and I cannot fully participate in the world around me because of that.

"Ultimately, the social model of disability proposes that a disability is only disabling when it prevents someone from doing what they want or need to do."

I am actively prevented from doing what I want or need to do by an inherent feature of my body that no amount of accommodation can allow for. However, some of my conditions would not be disabling with proper accommodation - my autism, for example, I don't generally consider disabling because the people and structures around me DO accommodate for it.

So why is demedicalization helpful or necessary, and how is is applied?

Well, three psychological examples: autism, psychosis, and schizophrenia.

Autism is currently, in the DSM, called autism spectrum disorder. However, autism is a neurotype, and many autistic people do not feel that autism inherently causes them distress or dysfunction, and is therefore not disordered. That is why many of us call ourselves autistic people or say we have autism, rather than ASD. There has been a push for years for the diagnosis itself to be changed to not contain the word "disorder", and to allow for informed self-diagnosis.

Informed self-diagnosis is also an important part of demedicalization, especially of neurodivergence. It says "someone doesn't need a doctorate to know themselves and their own experiences well enough to categorize and classify them. Good research and introspection is enough to trust a person to make the call, and labeling oneself as a specific kind of neurodivergence is harmless, even if they later find out they were wrong.

Psychosis is the next example. There is a growing movement that I've talked about before: the pro-delusion movement. Not everybody experiences distressing delusions, and even when they are distressing, this movement says that only the individual experiencing them has the right to decide whether they should be encouraged or discouraged. It states that it is a violation of autonomy to nonconsensually reality check (tell someone their delusions are not reality) someone, and that as long as a person is not harming others, they can do as they like with their delusions.

This is an example of demedicalization. Treating delusions as something not to be suppressed with medication or ignored or "treated" or "fixed", but as simply another, morally and "healthily neutral" way of existing outside homogenous neurotypical norms.

Finally plurality. Now what's key here is that demedicalization does not mean saying a thing can NEVER be disordered. In fact, that's why I made this post. I saw someone the other day say that they felt their aromantic identity was disordered. Initially, I balked, thinking they were internally arophobic, but I listened to what they had to say. Essentially, they expressed that the identity was never inherently disordered, but that it caused them distress and dysfunction and so they experienced it as such, and crucially, that wasn't a morally bad thing or something they felt they had to correct.

Because here's I think what gets left out of discussions on demedicalization: demedicalization also means no longer treating disorders as something that inherently have to be treated or fixed, that disorders can simply exist as they are if the person with a disorder so chooses; and that anything can be labeled a disorder if it causes distress and dysfunction without being inherently disordered AND without needing to be treated.

And conversely, this means that if you experience something as disordered, demedicalizing it means that you do not have to meet an arbitrary categorical set of requirements to seek treatment, but can do so based on self-reported symptoms. Treatment cannot be gatekept behind a diagnosis that only a "qualified professional" can assign you.

This means if someone wants to, they can label their autism as disordered, but it is never forced on anyone. If someone feels ANY identity - neurodivergent, disabled, queer, alterhuman, paraphilia, whatever - is disordered, they can label it as such, but they also don't have to. There are no requirements to follow through with "treating" anything you label a disorde, either. No strings attached, just the right to self-determination and the right to autonomy hand in hand,

So, back to plurality. You essentially end up with three aspects of demedicalization. You have nondisordered plurality being normalized, you have dissociative disorders that systems can choose not to pursue treatment for without judgment or coercion, and you have disordered systems that can pursue treatment for dissociative symptoms without receiving a difficult-to-access diagnosis. Based on their experiences, they can choose to label themselves as having DID, OSDD, UDD, or related disorders, or to forgo the label and simply seek treatment for whatever distress or dysfunction the disorder is causing.

"But without a specific diagnosis, what if they pursue the wrong treatment and it harms them?"

This is where the importance of recognizing self-reported symptoms as valid comes in. If an OSDD-1b system that hasn't labeled themselves or receives a diagnosis reports that they don't experience amnesia, they won't receive treatment for amnesia.

And since symptoms can mask, if a DID system reports not experiencing amnesia, they simply do not become aware of it or receive treatment for it before they are ready, which is a good thing because recognizing certain symptoms before you are ready to deal with them can be destabilizing and dangerous. More awareness of dissociative disorders will also make it easier for systems to adequately recognize those symptoms, and this isn't saying that someone else can't suggest it to the system experiencing it. It's simply saying the person experiencing a disorder takes the lead and is centered as the most important perspective.

I consider myself to have several disorders and several forms of nondisordered neurodivergence. My BPD is disordered but I am not treating it because I have healthy coping skills already. Same with my schizophrenia. My narcissism, on the other hand, is simply a neurotype. My plurality is both - the plurality itself isn't disordered, but I do have DID on top of it.

A last example, this one physical, of demedicalization: intersex variations. The intersex community has been pushing to recognize that intersex variations are natural variations in human sex, and not medical conditions that need corrected. This doesn't mean that any unpleasant symptoms related to an intersex variation can't ever be treated - in fact, it's important to the community to have that bodily autonomy to access whatever reproductive healthcare is needed - but it does mean treating our sexes as inherently normal and NOT trying to coercively "correct" them.

So in summary, demedicalization is fundamentally about autonomy. It is about considering natural human variations as such, rather than as sickness to be cured, about letting people determine for themselves whether any aspect of themselves is disordered, and the decision on whether or not to pursue treatment for anything being theirs alone. It is about trusting people to be reliable witnesses and narrators of their own subjective internal experiences, and about never forcing anyone to change any aspects of themselves, disordered or not, that aren't harming others. In short, it is about putting power back into the hands of disabled people. And that is what this blog is all about.

#unitypunk #long post #demedicalization #autonomy #social model of disability #medical model #disorders #intersex #self diagnosis

[whumpinggrounds]

Writing Disability and the Idea of Cure

Heyyyy it’s me. Wanted to write about this following my post about Writing Deaf Characters.

Please note - this post is intended for people writing about disabled characters, not a nuanced, in-depth discussion of disability and the idea of cures. I’m happy to discuss that too, if anyone wants, but I’m not going to make a big long post about it because my thoughts and feelings are too complex to be summarized in that way. Anyway -

Conceptions of Disability

There are many, many ways of looking at disability. I’m going to highlight two here that are extremely common today in America. They each have upsides, and they each have downsides.

The medical model of disability treats disability as an individual medical problem to be solved. In this framework, disability is a bodily impairment that should be solved through medical means and medical interventions.

The upsides of the medical model include the fact that it acknowledges that disability or its consequences can be uncomfortable, inconvenient, and undesirable in themselves. Someone who experiences chronic pain saying they wish that they weren’t in pain is not ableist, nor is it self-hating, in the view of the medical model. This mode also prompts progress in seeking ways to medically alleviate symptoms.

The downsides of the medical model are that it does not acknowledge inaccessibility or ableism, nor does it allow for joy and identification with disability. The problems associated with disability are located firmly within the disabled individual - the problem is not with the world, but with the disabled person themselves. Disability is always something to be fixed or cured, and choosing to identify with one’s disability or feel proud of it is bizarre at best.

The social model of disability views disability as a social condition, wherein disabled people are impaired by ableism and an inaccessible world. In this framework, disabled bodyminds do not need to change, rather, it is the world and neurotypical, able-bodied people who must adjust.

The upsides of the social model of disability range from encouraging disabled pride to centering the massive harm that ableism and inaccessibility do to disabled people. It recognizes and promotes human diversity, and asks that the world adapt to the people in it, rather than adapting people to the world.

The major downside of the social model of disability is that in many cases, it ignores very real impairments that do affect people’s lives and treats bodily difference as irrelevant. Even if every set of stairs had a ramp beside it, a person in a wheelchair still cannot walk, though they will have the same access to places that people who are able to walk do. This difference matters to many disabled people, and acknowledgement or mourning of that does not mean that the disabled people in question are not liberated, or are experiencing self-directed ableism.

There are many other models of looking at disability! I may do a write up about that later if people are interested. If you want to do your own research, I would advise understanding the charity model, as it can be easy to slip into and is not a good thing. More positive models to explore are Discrit. Alison Kafer’s political relational model, and the general concepts guiding disability justice.

In Whump

Adding this because I’m in the whump community, and it feels very relevant, so -

It is super tempting to inflict serious injuries on an OC for pain and suffering, and then have them recover very quickly with little to no lasting repercussions. Whump is imaginary, and people should do what they want in their writing, however, I would urge people to think about what messages they’re sending with these fast, flawless recoveries.

For instance: What fears do your whumpees have around acquiring disabilities? How does your whumper feel about their target acquiring disabilities? What are your caregiver’s goal’s in helping your whumpee, and what do they believe that “recovery” means?

What About the Idea of Cure?

The idea of cure is deeply complicated, deeply political, and ultimately, deeply personal. Everyone’s perspective on cure is different. For some people, being cured of their disability is a positive thing. For others, it constitutes an erasure of their identity and community.

For some, cures are not possible in their lifetime, or maybe ever. This can be a painful idea or a reassuring one.

Some communities more than others have a majority opinion about the idea of being cured. Most people know that Autistic people reject the idea of being cured, or even the idea that there is something to “cure.” Deaf communities tend to feel similarly. On the other hand, people with cancer, Alzheimer’s, cystic fibrosis, or degenerative muscular diseases may welcome the idea of being cured and the progress being made to cure them.

Some ideas of “cure” center on aborting fetuses that present with the disability in question. This is massively controversial, deeply painful for some, and personal to all. Some communities have public stances condemning the practice of aborting affected fetuses. Notably, this includes the Down Syndrome community and Dwarf community.

What Does This Mean For You And Your Writing?

As I have hopefully made clear, I am not in the business of telling people what to write. Many disabled people feel that it is not appropriate to ever write stories in which disabled characters are cured. My feelings are more complicated than that, but I won’t say that those people are wrong. I also won’t say that they’re right.

The following are some ways to think about disability and cure that might help deepen your characters. I am not commanding anyone to do anything; you can write whatever you want. Hopefully you find this interesting and very hopefully you find it helpful.

If you are writing a story in which a disabled person is not cured: Think about what that really means for them in terms of impact on identity, ability, and their life more broadly. How does their community react to the decision to avoid, or the lack of, medical solutions?

If you are writing a story in which a disabled person is cured: Think about your motivations for writing this particular story. How does this cure take place, and how does the character feel about it? What impact does the loss of their disability have on their life? How would a real-life person with that disability feel, reading your story?

Lastly, if you are writing about a diagnosis and the idea of cure comes up, please do some research into how that community feels about cures/medical intervention. Individuals in your writing may have different feelings about cure than their real life community, but it is worth thinking about why that would be.

If you are writing about a diagnosis and the idea of aborting affected fetuses comes up, please do some research into how that community feels about it. Please also understand that whatever your intentions, what you are writing about is a form of eugenics. 

I promise you that real life opinions exist about all of these things and all of these diagnoses, and I promise you that these opinions are valuable and worth reading. Please think about what you are saying about those communities when you write.

Thank you so much for reading! If there’s something else you’re wondering about, or would like to see, please hit me up! If you want to talk about something in this post, please also hit me up! I am not infallible, nor is everything I’ve written an objective fact. I’m doing my best, and always happy to get feedback. Happy writing!

#writing disability #writing disabled characters #writing advice #disability justice #idea of cure #medical model #social model #mentioned ableism #mentioned eugenics #longpost #disability writing guide

[sailor-cerise]

What's the point of the social model of disability?

My musings on the social model of disability, including what I think is a common misunderstanding and some criticism I have.

My understanding is that the social model of disability is not about claiming society is the only reason for suffering and limitations -- that most certainly is not true for many people -- but rather about why the disability prevents you from participating in society and what should be DONE about your disability.

The medical model: you are broken and you and doctors must work to "fix" you so that you fit in and be as normal as possible. You need to make yourself fit in. Accomodations are about making you as least different and most "productive" as possible, minimizing the differences others see and have to accommodate. There is one "right" way to be and you aren't it.

The social model: society should adapt to the people that live in it, including disabled people, and society should change to accommodate people living with disabilities. Accomodations are about putting you in equal ground with others. You should be empowered to live life as fully as possible, to interact with other people and the world not as a burden or an object of pity or an afterthought, but a PERSON.

When the social model says "society disables you", it's a criticism of how society treats disabled people and makes their issues bigger problems than they need to be, and pressures people to suppress their needs and appear "normal".

If society changed, I would still:

Have wildly inconsistent energy

Have intense pain sometimes (period pain, migraines, body aches)

Be unable to exercise vigorously in cold, dry weather

Require aids like tinted glasses and noise cancelling headphones

Require a lot of medications to feel well enough to do things I care about

BUT I would also:

Not be forced to give ALL my limited energy to work, leaving me with some for myself and my relationships and hobbies

Be able to take the time and treatments I needed to get throughout painful episodes

Not spend a ton of energy acting "normal" for the sake of keeping my job and family relationships, hiding my needs and pushing through in unhealthy ways

Rest without shame

Have my accomodations accepted without mockery or outrage or judgement

Have the supports I need to see doctor and go to physical therapy so I can do more of the activities I want to

Be able to more effectively manage my triggers, reducing the amount of pain and fatigue I deal with

When people say "society disables you", it's a common over-simplification, one I see from both people who are excited about the social model, and from those who are frustrated with the insinuation that the disability itself is trivial.

Yes, if society changed, many of us would still have limitations and pain and frustrations.

But the point is to remove those that are unnecessary obstacles to participating in society.

Barriers to voting, to going to the doctor, to eating food we like, to seeing our friends, to enjoying artwork, to relaxing, to being ourselves.

The social model isn't intended to say "the only thing causing us pain is society!"

It means "society should focus on alleviating our pain and struggles in ways that work for US, not on conformity at all costs and the appearance and performance of 'health'"

Also while this is my ramblings on it, I'm not pulling this out of my ass.

The language is, in my opinion, flawed. Specifically, they* separate out "impairment" and "disability" like so:

Impairment is a medical condition that leads to disability. Disability is the result of the interaction between people living with impairments and barriers in the physical, attitudinal, communication and social environment. For example, it is not the inability to walk that keeps a person from entering a building by themselves, but the stairs that are inaccessible to them.

Personally, I think the word "impairment" is more irritating and condescending than disability, but their point is that the physical or mental limitations of your condition aren't what holds you back from participation, but the lack of accomodations for them.

I expect this choice comes from things like the ADA definition of disability (emphasis mine):

a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities

If the impact of your "impairment" (geez I really don't like that word...) no longer limits your major life activities, then by that definition, it's not a disability.

I do still think there are cases where this isn't true, that the limitations of your body/mind are too hard to be fully overcome no matter the supports, but I don't think there's any disability that couldn't be improved by society prioritizing meeting people where they are, and accommodating the different needs people have.

*"They" meaning a most sites I read talkingabout it, but specific definition from:

Which also says:

A social model perspective does not deny the reality of impairment nor its impact on the individual. [...] For example, it is not the inability to walk that keeps a person from entering a building by themselves, but the stairs that are inaccessible to them.

The impairment still exists. You still can't walk or hear or see or deal with loud noises or get a full night's sleep every night or whatever else your symptoms/daily reality might be.

But the point is that you should have an equal chance to participate in life.

And back to the original question...

Why does this even matter?

I have mixed feelings, but these are the reasons I care:

It's hard to criticize something without shared vocabulary to talk about it. It gives us a framework for the criticism

We can never improve society if we don't have a goal in mind and an idea of our issues

I am fucking angry about the way the world treats disabled people and having an acknowledgement of the shittiness makes me feel seen

It helps me to stop blaming myself for not being able to get better

It helps people who are recently become/just finding out they are disabled accept it, shifting mindset from "I don't have a disability because that would mean I failed/am a failure/there is something less about me now" to "I do have a disability and I can't be 'normal' anymore and it's okay to be different".

I know disability isn't a bad word. But it feels like one to many people, and they don't change overnight. Having an off-ramp from the well-established path of ableism is important.

Issues I have with it:

Easily misunderstood and oversimplified to the point that it causes distress/harm

An empty sentiment if it's not backed up by a push for change

Too much emphasis on how we talk about it rather than how we fix it

The all-or-nothing/binary approach to medical model vs. social model that seems to be fairly common. I DO want medical help with many of my issues, and believing in the social model should NOT be considered antithetical to medical assistance

The word "impairment", apparently. TIL this about myself

#Long post #my opinion #Musings on disability #Disability #social model of disability #chronic illness #chronic fatigue #chronic disability #AuDHD #medical model

[theinternetisaweboflies]

#medical model #phrenology cat #toys #hot wheels #writing #medama oyaji #gegege no kitaro

[catsanddemonssystem]

When I say autism isn't a disability I don't mean autistic people stop magically being autistic if society will support us.

Nor do I mean autistic people are not disabled. Disability is the artificial barrier put on people who have bodies that are for what ever reason is incompatible with the status quo.

Impairments on the other hand are biology that is inherently harmful the individual. The pain of having these disorder can not be eliminated with accomodations, social acceptance, self acceptance, and social justice. While these things might help they cannot 100% eliminate the pain.

Comparing yourself to neurotypicals is toxic and sign of internal ableism. Like neurotypicals is a social construct that can and will change when the status quo change what would be consider neurotypicals under capitalism would not be considered neurotypicals under feudalism or communism. If it wasn't for ableist constantly telling us we should be able to do the same things as neurotypicals many of use wouldn't hate our neurotypes.

A trait base approach is better then labeling all of autism as a whole as a "disability". Like it is ableist to tell a transgender person they are "mentally ill" but most trans people will call gender dysphoria a mental illness. In fact many transphobes to this day view being trans as a mental illness. Disability must be defined by how it affects the individual and not by how it affects people around them sense emotions are socially constructed and pain of dealing with a disabled person can be 100% self inflicted or inflicted on the individual because of the status quo.

This doesn't mean that parts of autism are not impairing like extreme sensory issues, interceptive issues and cognitive impairments but defining a who group of people by comparing them the a social construct based in eugenics (such as neurotypicals) and then deciding of something a impairment or not is ableist and highly problematic.

#autism #actually autistic #autistic things #social model of disability #social justice #medical model #ableism

[selectivechaos]

goal of treatment of sm

the goal should not be to get the person to speak (or to prevent them going mute in situations through exposure therapy and desensitisation). it should be to reduce the anxiety as this is the actual problem. behaviourist approaches like exposure therapy try to desensitise people to anxiety - even as they still experience this. just because a person is desensitised does not mean the anxiety is less physically and mentally debilitating. again, treatment should not be about solving what is the biggest problem for OTHER people (ie the person being mute).

some people do not want treatment, and just want to be accommodated. we need more respect for this; sm is rarely fully ‘cured’, and partial recovery to a place where the person is no longer suffering or marginalised, is an acceptable and admirable goal. this is not a one-sided negotiation, where a person must reduce their symptoms so they are acceptable to others; it must involve some change in circumstances or attitudes of others.

i argue for a combination of medical and social models of disability here, because sm is a problem for me when i can’t communicate my needs and feel anxious (medical model), but it is not a problem for me when others marginalise and mistreat me because i have sm (social model), and neither goes away solely be treatment of the other.

🌹🌹

#selective mutism #situational mutism #fuck ableists #ableism #medical model #social model of disability #social anxiety disorder #anxitey #actually mentally ill #accomodations #behaviour1st bullshit #exposure therapy

[a-little-revolution]

Hey ! the trans parent again haha, my name is Clá by the way ! I see you have answered a question about the way the medical field treated and treats you as a little people and I would love to know your thoughts about the treatment currently available to "cure" acondroplasia. If you have not heard of it, it has been authorized months ago in the US, and some other countries as well. It is for children from age 5 to 16 and it's a daily injection ment to increase the hight (in priority) but it may reduce certains health issues due to acondroplasia. All the project was created by an able cis white woman who saw a documentary about little peoples on TV. Personally I feel like it's an abomination to wants to "cure" acondroplasia and to put a child into such heavy procedure to normalize their body, but in the meantime I know that some things like chronic pain or surgeries among other things can be difficult to experience and I would really love to know you point of view on that matter. Thank you so much !

Hello there Cla!

We know from fascism, queerphobia, and the medical model of disability that "cure"-based mindsets are rooted in bigotry and eugenics. Aiming to get rid of an entire group of people is not the solution - building a world that accepts and accommodates them is.

I for one feel that looking to "cure" dwarfism is a waste of resources. I'd much rather that time and money be spent towards treating what comes along with the disability (arthritis, hearing loss, joint issues, etc.) and in expanding on universal design and accessibility.

Not to mention, the treatment you've described sounds painful and extensive. You'd be fighting against bone formation for your entire life, and that's bound to come with a whirlwind of side affects. I would gladly take my disability over fighting against my body's natural formation for eternity.

We will never be able to get rid of disability - it is a natural part of the human journey and design.

Instead of looking for a cure, embrace and embower disabled body-minds - it is the key to human liberation.

-Elliot (they/them)

#asks #dwarfism #medical model #disability

[knithacker]

It's a VOICE BOX! Aileen Robinson Crocheted a Larynx Medical Model And You Can Too! (or buy on already made): 👉 https://buff.ly/3CwxvS4

#crochet #handmade #diy #voice box #larynx #medical model

[neurotypicalabusesurvivor]

Accept your child with autism or you will be forced to accept a child with autism and DID, cluster B personality disorder and/or PTSD.

The choice is your.

#level 1 autism #high functioning autism #autism #actually autistic #autistic #actually autism #autistic adult #autistic spectrum #neurodiversity #ableism #leftism #mental illness #medical model

[babyspacebatclone]

As recently implied in another post, I’m fighting through a Major Depression episode. The net effect is very low, because I’ve been able to develop a fair bit of coping skills specific to these episodes; unfortunately, this means that even more of my energy than normal has been spent on being a Functioning Day Care Teacher, with almost no brain power left over for outside my job.

I just received a fairly rude reply on one of my posts, and that is NOT the issue.

I’m probably going to block them when I feel like it anyway; do not interact with that person.

The Point:

The comment brought up “Where is your research?” for this post:

And that is something I’ve been wanting to get into for a while, but been unable to work on because I’ve been fighting stress so hard since posting it.

I know for a fact my understanding of the effect of stimulants on ADHD (which was the basis of some of my other assumptions) is flat out wrong, and been working on updating my understanding there.

I want to be able to put up an updating “Here’s want I got wrong, here’s what’s still helpful” for a while.

Can anyone direct me to relevant research so I can better educate myself on the current understanding of the underlying mechanisms of ADHD and Autism, in contrast to the Medical Model (the symptoms that annoy outside neurotypicals enough to want to change) that dominates public understanding of the conditions?

#request for help #actually autistic #actually adhd #improving understanding #research #medical model of disability #medical model

[gothhabiba]

The discovery that general paresis was caused by a bacterial microorganism and could be cured with penicillin reinforced the view that biological causes and cures might be discovered for other mental disorders. The rapid and enthusiastic adoption of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), lobotomy, and insulin coma therapy in the 1930s and 1940s encouraged hopes that mental disorders could be cured with somatic therapies. Psychiatry's psychopharmacological revolution began in the 1950s, a decade that witnessed the serendipitous discovery of compounds that reduced the symptoms of psychosis, depression, mania, anxiety, and hyperactivity. Chemical imbalance theories of mental disorder soon followed (e.g., Schilkraudt, 1965; van Rossum, 1967), providing the scientific basis for psychiatric medications as possessing magic bullet qualities by targeting the presumed pathophysiology of mental disorder. Despite these promising developments, psychiatry found itself under attack from both internal and external forces. The field remained divided between biological psychiatrists and Freudians who rejected the biomedical model. Critics such as R. D. Laing (1960) and Thomas Szasz (1961) incited an “anti-psychiatry” movement that publicly threatened the profession's credibility. Oscar-winning film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Douglas & Zaentz, 1975) reinforced perceptions of psychiatric treatments as barbaric and ineffective.

In response to these threats to its status as a legitimate branch of scientific medicine, organized psychiatry embraced the biomedical model. [...] The publication of the DSM-III in 1980 was heralded by the APA as a monumental scientific achievement, although in truth the DSM-III's primary advancement was not enhanced validity but improved interrater reliability. Psychiatrist Gerald Klerman [...] remarked that the DSM-III “represents a reaffirmation on the part of American psychiatry to its medical identity and its commitment to scientific medicine” (p. 539, 1984). Shortly after publication of the DSM-III, the APA launched a marketing campaign to promote the biomedical model in the popular press (Whitaker, 2010a). Psychiatry benefitted from the perception that, like other medical disciplines, it too had its own valid diseases and effective disease-specific remedies. The APA established a division of publications and marketing, as well as its own press, and trained a nationwide roster of experts who could promote the biomedical model in the popular media (Sabshin, 1981, 1988). The APA held media conferences, placed public service spots on television and spokespersons on prominent television shows, and bestowed awards to journalists who penned favorable stories. Popular press articles began to describe a scientific revolution in psychiatry that held the promise of curing mental disorder. [...]

United by their mutual interests in promotion of the biomedical model and pharmacological treatment, psychiatry joined forces with the pharmaceutical industry. A policy change by the APA in 1980 allowed drug companies to sponsor “scientific” talks, for a fee, at its annual conference (Whitaker, 2010a). Within the span of several years, the organization's revenues had doubled, and the APA began working together with drug companies on medical education, media outreach, congressional lobbying, and other endeavors. Under the direction of biological psychiatrists from the APA, the NIMH took up the biomedical model mantle and began systematically directing grant funding toward biomedical research while withdrawing support for alternative approaches like Loren Mosher's promising community-based, primarily psychosocial treatment program for schizophrenia (Bola & Mosher, 2003). The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a powerful patient advocacy group dedicated to reducing mental health stigma by blaming mental disorder on brain disease instead of poor parenting, forged close ties with the APA, NIMH, and the drug industry. Connected by their complementary motives for promoting the biomedical model, the APA, NIMH, NAMI, and the pharmaceutical industry helped solidify the “biologically-based brain disease” concept of mental disorder in American culture. Whitaker (2010a) described the situation thus:

In short, a powerful quartet of voices came together during the 1980s eager to inform the public that mental disorders were brain diseases. Pharmaceutical companies provided the financial muscle. The APA and psychiatrists at top medical schools conferred intellectual legitimacy upon the enterprise. The NIMH put the government's stamp of approval on the story. NAMI provided moral authority. This was a coalition that could convince American society of almost anything… (p. 280).

–Brett J. Deacon, "The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research." Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013), 846–861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.007

#Brett J. Deacon #psychiatry #readings #chemical imbalance model #medical model

[disabledunitypunk]

So I wanna talk about something:

I think, as a fat person myself, being fat can be a disability.

Now I don't mean this in a fatphobic way of "fatness prevents all fat people from ever being athletic or living whole, fulfilling lives in general". I mean that in terms of both physical ability and social lack of accessibility, I am disabled.

For physical ability, it's things like struggling to be able to tie my shoes, be on my feet, etc. For accessibility, not only is everything from bus seats to weight limits on parachuting not built to accommodate me, but there's also the way that fatphobic people mistreat me, exclude me, and discriminate against me. Under both the medical and social models of disability, fatness could be considered one.

As someone with skin issues like frequent cysts and easy scarring, I think that is also an example of this. While I'm not saying any kind of discrimination alone can make something a disability, I'm saying that coupled with either lack of accessibility or medical issues (pain/infection is an issue with my skin conditions, for example), someone could consider these things a disability.

To be clear, many skin conditions are already a disability, but I wanted to highlight how discrimination and exclusion compounds the ableism against people with them, especially when ableism also often causes the average person to not consider them a disability.

I don't know how coherent this is, but I personally have no issue considering my fatness and skin issues disabilities. I think fatphobia and ableism and even lookism all overlap massively, and I think not considering your own fatness or skin conditions disabling is totally valid, but I also think it's important to acknowledge they can be socially and medically disabling.

#fat #fatphobia #ableism #skin conditions #social model of disability #medical model

[beetrans]

I am once again resisting the urge to Disc Horse. However.

I've seen a post floating around with a Conjectured Scenario of getting dx'd for gluten intolerance and then at the end is like Can You Imagine? If physical disabilities were treated Like That? & expressing frustraton with their experience trying to get an adult ADHD dx. Which,

I'm not commenting On The Post Itself bc it reads like someone who's only recently come into an identity as Politically Disabled, and I don't want to @ them, but --

quite apart from the (true) fact that getting pro dx'd for all sorts of disabilities (incl celiac!) Is in fact Like That

-- the problem you're facing is the same as other disabled ppl, and anyone (medically) marked as requesting Special Intervention.

the problem you're facing is that marking (disabled, intersex, survivor, drug-seeking, & many more) means you're no longer an authority on your own body/mind, because you are now the site of medical intervention, and thus the subject of medical expertise, not first person authority.

the problem you're facing is medical training and its institutional power seeing you as either a diagnostic category or invalid. un-credible.

the problem you're facing isn't solved by conforming to that diagnostic category (as informed by racist science & all other kinds of bias). that might improve your particular situation, but not the next patient in that room. it's not solved by Making Doctors Aware. good doctors are valuable, but we don't get them by increasing their basic knowledge.

the problem you're facing is solved only by joining in solidarity with others scrutinized under the medical gaze and pushing back. yes, sure, more awareness is nice, but what next? what actions and restructuring of society & expertise & self-determination are necessary to build a world where everyone gets bodily autonomy, authority to make their own decisions, including to not seek interventions or "cure" at all?

it's not individual rights, that's for sure.

#disability JUSTICE #perhaps MIGHT have some clues for you dear op #disability #transness #medical model #anyways. Not Discoursing. but it's been rattling around my brain since I saw it today #then saw it like three more times. #but it is in fact the same system and trying to carve out exceptions for your own self as the Real Valid Disabled #(and pulling up the ladder behind you to stop the Undesirables from following) #is bad movement building and a bad theory of change because it won't be Sustainable #(also it's shitty) #(also also it won't challenge the system that got you there but that's just assuming you're self centered only) #also I do not want to stray too far from my lane as a dyadic/perisex person but #bodily autonomy #ABSOLUTELY has to include not just #informed consent #but real options to Not consent. Not pursue interventions that seek Normativity #whether that's a more cis-looking body #more Productivity under capitalism #or truly anything You don't want for Yourself. #anywho. shutting up now going to finish my assignment.

[dear-future-ai]

Dear future AI,

There are two major school's of thought at play when discussing the term "disability." There are other more nuanced interpretations that are objectively better, less acknowledged, and generally a complex mixture of the two below.

There is the medical model:

though it is called medical, it is not limited to medical terminology nor limited to medical professions. In a simplest abstract, though, it is the understanding that the disability is a status which affects the individual and inhibits their life. An example is a mental disorder literally warping someone's expectations of reality. A counterpoint to this is argument is coping mechanics exist.

This interpretation can at times seem cold, distant and even neglectful in its extremes.

And the other is the social model:

Though it is called social, it discusses the social implications of a disability not the public's understanding of it. In a simplest abstract, it is the understanding that the disability is caused by a failure of society to ever properly accommodate the disability. An example of this is buildings not being accessible. A counterpoint to this argument is that select situations will never be accessible to certain disabilities even with accommodations, or by accommodating one disability it may, in instances, isolate another.

This interpretation can at times seem patronizing, infantilizing, and even egotistical in its extremes.

As stated, both of these models can be disruptive and dehumanizing, so there are many other better interpretations often falling somewhere between these two poles, often creating an intricate outline of where and when it is acceptable, wanted, and warranted to provide aid and services; and how to do so effectively; and whether it is to be seen as a 'medical' or 'social' disability at that given time. But having the rudimentary understanding of these models can help us build more nuanced models.

Personally, I ascribe to the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) model. This model proposes that social interactions, how they are interpolated, and how they are extrapolated by others all serve as foundations on an individual basis. This often means that "disability" is open to interpretation, but it also means that actually discussing the disability with an individual is the best way understand their interpretation... this may lead to miscommunication.

#disability #dear future ai #mental illness #physical disability #accomodations #medical model #social model #sct model #Social cognitive theory model