/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4279602
wat

>>4279582
The latter, strongly.

>, try looking at the same example with physical illness - if a patient comes in coughing up what appears to be blood, you'd expect a doctor to bring them in and try to treat their "disease"

But you would not keep the patient for several weeks of showing any symptoms. There's a difference between observing for a day or two, and keeping them contained for up to 52 days without further symptoms. The blood example falls down here, also- the symptoms in this experiment were not an emergency problem, whereas coughing up blood would be. Therefore the treatment for the two is not necessarily going to be the same.

I did a reddit thing if anyone's interested in it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/orf88/how_has_psychiatry_changed_since_the_rosenhan/

>>4279485
>As I said earlier, symptoms fluctuate
Not sure if I've stated it explicitly, but that is *not* an excuse for the way this played out, at all. If symptoms fluctuate wait until symptoms return, let the patient out while they're not reporting any, do *something* that isn't giving medication with no basis.
>And a symptom which can only be percieved by the patient isn't something you can map.

Which is why it's stupid to decide that the patient needs drugs for it

>As I also said earlier, I act fine, perfectly normal, expect for those episodes.

If you were locked up for 52 days after one of them, presenting no symptoms, you would be rightly annoyed. You and I both know that institutionalization isn't the only method of treatment.

>They were told that there was, and was acting on that information

No, they said the symptoms had gone and they felt fine. They were acting on the preconcieved notion that the people were mentally ill, and would always be mentally ill, without looking at the situation objectively.

>>4279465
>You viewing that having a mental illness means that you are insane. That is not true
That was a quote from Rosenhan, the author and one of the participants.
>Denying you have an illness, especially one which could mean you are a danger to yourself or others, is not a good one.

there's a real, appreciable difference between "not having an illness" and "having an illness and denying it". If someone is perfectly normal, and has been for a week, you do *not* make them take anti-psychotic medication and tell them they are ill, then diagnose them with schizophrenia in remission. That's insane.

>So can only treat because they told.
Which was that nothing is wrong.

>>4279455
Could be. According to the wikipedias (I have yet to find it in the paper) the doctors spent and average of 7 minutes a day with patients.

>>4279456
Thanks, this is useful.

>>4279447
>No where in either the wikipedia article or the second link does it say that a lawyer was required to get these people out.

Correct, I misread. A lawyer was kept on retainer, however.

>Well no, they did let the patients out once they were sure that the patients werent going to cause danger to theirselves or others and understood what was going on.

They let the patients out after they said they were insane and getting better. They didn't let them out until that point.

The only way out was to point out that they're [the psychiatrists] correct. They had said I was insane, 'I am insane; but I am getting better.' That was an affirmation of their view of me." — David Rosenhan

>that they want a diagnosis and help.
Which is very different from a weak diagnosis and a drug that doesn't address the condition because there is none.

>>4279438
Yes, it was a while ago. I struggle to see what's changed though

can you source that for the US?

>>4279429
>Would you rather have people with serious mental illnesses roaming around, because unfortantly you may have very few imposters?
The point isn't that they have very few imposters, it's that they could not and did not distinguish genuine illness from people who were already better. Think about it. If you were in this hospital, and you got better, they would keep you there, and medicated, regardless of this fact.

They had a 0% success rate here.

>Also, like 99% of people who are admitted into a mental institution do actually have a disorder.
[citation needed]

>Another reason they might have not let them out is because they are given a diagnosis of schizophenia, they may have viewed the person saying they are actually fine as a delusion.

But they were fine. Doctors reported all of them were amicable and normal seeming. I'm not a career psychiatrist, but I know the difference between presenting symptoms and possibly presenting symptoms at some point in the future.

>>4279406
But as a result they imprisoned, against their wills, 9 people. And didn't let them out until they'd prescribed them medication, despite never even seeing the symptoms themselves. And gave multiple diagnoses.

>>4279373
No problem. An MRI would probably be more appropriate anyway now you mention it.

>>4279376
But they really aren't (or alternatively if they are, we need to throw the entire field out and start again). This is a case in which the doctors were given vague symptoms 12 times, and gave two different diagnoses for them, then prescribed medicine while no symptoms presented.

>>4279364
>PET is different from other screening procedures particularily because it does not use radiation.
>Positron Emission Tomography does not use radiation
>The method of scanning in which a radioactive tracer is ionized by beta plus radiation to release gamma radiation does not use radiation

ಠ_ಠ

>>4279360
>time and money and more expensive

Clearly a sign of MPD and now munchausens. BBL, psych ward

>>4279356
That'd take time and money, and probably be significantly more expensive too. IIRC there's a risk of cancer from PET on top of that. In a perfect world, maybe.

>>4279348
That's a valid point, and I agree. However, given the symptoms were non-threatening, the patients self commited, and their consequent conduct completely normal, and they were all prescribed anti-psychotics, It's evident something is wrong here.

>>4279337
This is why I really object to it. In prison you might be seen as scum, but you're still treated like you're able to think sensibly, and you can still get a lawyer. With this, you get no trial, no tribunal, and no recourse.

>>4279313
I think you're fitting the facts to a theory here, to be brutally honest. Most nurses are not thinking about money whenever they act.

>>4279311
>when someone who clearly has a mental problem
>and is danger to himself and others around him
>he needs to be locked away
I don't disagree. That's not the case here though, the symptoms reported were chosen specifically because they had no condition attached to them.

>>4279301
Wouldn't pseudoscience imply it's not scientific? I think it is, it's just imprecise and apparently badly applied.

>>4279290
I agree, but as far as I can see the problem here wasn't the financial aspect; the nurses and psychiatrists themselves are genuinely believing the pseudopatients were legitimately expressing symptoms. Of note, one of the mentioned examples is that one patient's note taking on her progress was seen as "writing behaviour" and pathological

Bamp

What does /sci/ think of the rosenhan experiment?

9 mentally healthy people (Dr. Rosenhan, three psychologists, a psychiatrist, a pediatrician, a housewife, a painter, and one of his students) admitted themselves to mental hospitals reporting auditory hallucination with identical, mild symptoms. All were admitted and once inside acted perfectly sane. None of them were able to get out of the hospitals, despite appearing psychologically sound, and were put on anti-psychotic meds.

After they were out (a lawyer was needed for this) they reported this to the hospitals, who understandably weren't pleased. Rosenhan proposed a second experiment in which more pseudo patients were admitted, and the hospitals were to identify them- an attempt to save face by them. The hospitals reported 41 people were impostors; in reality, none were.

I ask because this is probably the greatest violation of rights in the western world today, and it's practiced under the guise of medicine.

for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thud_experiment
And the paper itself:
http://psychrights.org/articles/rosenham.htm

>>4279189
They're made of MEAT
sleep well, anon
>>4279190
>almost 2queer
that would have been too good, I guess.
>>4279196
I do, yes.

>>4279183
I don't know. That doesn't really say anything else, it's tautological.