Do more diagnostics make you healthier?

5
Jul

Recently, I was listening to a Canadian psychiatrist being interviewed on National TV about his recent contribution to the translation of the DSM-5 in French. As he was obviously very proud of having contributed to what is consider the medical bible, the commentator asked him: “But doctor, more diagnosis also implies more medications,” and the doctor simply answered with detachment: “Sure…”
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the reference manual that mental health professionals and physicians use to diagnose mental disorders in the United States. When first published in 1952, it featured the descriptions of 106 disorders, compared to the fourth edition (DSM-IV) published in 1994, which had approximately 300 diagnostic categories, and the most recent edition (DSM-5), with an increase of about 10 percent in new diagnostic categories.” (1)
In parallel, “The use of psychotropic drugs by adult Americans increased 22 percent from 2001 to 2010, with one in five adults now taking at least one psychotropic medication, according to industry data. In 2010, Americans spent more than $16 billion on antipsychotics, $11 billion on antidepressants and $7 billion for drugs to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).“ (2)
Adding more diagnostics not only justifies more medication, but also more medical procedures and absenteeism from work. In a recent blog, I also wrote about the fact that our healthcare system is the third leading cause of death in the U.S. after heart disease and cancer, associated with the side effects of treatment. (1)
In another blog, “Diagnosing Disease is an Illusion!” (3), I wrote:
Diagnosis creates a smoke screen that keeps the attention of the healer facing in the wrong direction to solve the problem. The core of the solution doesn’t reside in knowing the diagnosis of the disease. The consequence of investing in this mirage is to settle for an arsenal of therapies that are loaded with side effects and most often don’t address the real cause of the problem. When the strategy of healing is bound by these constraints, there is no choice other than to minimize the symptoms or accept the fatality of an ill condition. Moreover, the diagnostic approach is embedded in a materialistic model of healing that cannot grasp the subtlety of spontaneous healing.
Diagnostics are useful, don’t get me wrong. But in the greater scope of a quantum integrative evaluation, the practitioner also looks at health parameters that can restore the client by natural approaches, addressing what we call the bio-vital-mental-spiritual terrain. Doctors and health practitioners need to be educated and trained in a broader and deeper vision to look at the individual not only in terms of disease, but also in terms of their full potentiality. (4)
The interview on national TV left me totally perplexed since at the end, this psychiatric doctor was applauded for his contribution without any awareness of the real problem. I was astonished that two brilliant individuals could speak about this matter without realizing that something important is missing.
Do you realize that as a society we have invested all our resources in a linear medical understanding that can only result in a doomed healthcare system? Let me tell you what is missing: a multidimensional model of healing based on an updated model of science, quantum physics, which is integrated into the art of healing. (Quantum University)

 

  1. John M. Grohol, PsyD & Margarita Tartakovsky, MSB
  2. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/prescribing.aspx
    Brendan L. Smith, June 2012, Vol 43, No. 6, Print version: page 36
  3. http://iquim.org/blog/diagnosing-disease-is-an-illusion/
  4. http://drpauldrouin.com/doctor-looks-matters/
  5. http://drpauldrouin.com/the-challenge-for-pro-consciousness-medicine/

Comment

Share