Reply to comment

Andrea,

I've been struggling with that same feeling of mutual exclusiveness, and I like your comment about ethics of treatment, the medical model, and medical paternalism.

I'd like to contrast Jessica and your example of bi-polar disorder with that of Austism. In that satirical website about the Neurotypical, the Austistic authors' clear purpose was to assert that they are not broken at all, that treatment seems more like forced conformity, and that because of many communication differences, conversations like these never really happen.

In observing comments made about bi-polar disorder and austism, clearly these two brain configurations produce people with very different conceptions about their self. For example, bi-polar people may not view themselves as diseased, and autistic people may view themselves as simply different. What's the fundamental difference between these two?

This seems to me to be an important question to ask, especially in light of our critique of the DSM. Would an alternative structure this very useful medical guide include sections on brain configurations from which people who see themselves as healthy/whole emerge (maybe bi-polar?), brain configurations from which people who see themselves as unhealthy/broken emerge (maybe depression?), and brain configurations from which people who see themselves as just one of many variations of humans emerge (maybe Austism?).