Beyond the Plate: Navigating Mental Health Diagnoses with a Scientific Palette

For those who have been following my posts, you will probably know that I speak much about the concept of safeguarding technical terminologies, especially mental health conditions.

While I understand that sometimes 'feeling' like having a diagnosis of a mental health condition may help us feel understood, heard, and most importantly, validated, I have other views that you may not entirely agree with or worse, you may even feel offended.

However, these views contain no ill intention; what I truly want to share may IN FACT gel well with your concept of discussion and communication. We can still debate and discuss even if we don't meet eye to eye.

So, this serves as a warning as this post might potentially trigger your reaction. Read it at your own risk.

Have you ever had Yangzhou fried rice, or even steak diane?

Yes, I understand that this doesn't seem to go with what mental health advocacy is all about, but please bear with me.

Have you ever wondered that, while there are different variations to those two classic dishes, BOTH OF THEM still have some basic requirements to be considered as said dishes?

In short, while I can add my ingredients which I feel comfortable with and to my liking...

What I may have created may not actually be Yangzhou fried rice or steak diane.

Now, allow me to bring your attention back to my advocacy towards mental health.

Similar to my metaphor, while we may have our subjective perception of what a 'mental health condition' is, there should and must be some indicators that guide us, help us, assist us to understand that these signs and symptoms are a collective representation of a particular condition.

Henceforth, we have DSM-V and ICD-11, serving as a guide for clinicians like ourselves to help our clients understand their current struggles.

If you come in with XXX symptoms within YYY period of time, you might meet the criteria of ZZZ disorder based on the severity of the symptoms (affecting one or more than one setting).

This standardization isn't and shouldn't be seen as a way to tie us to being merely some 'data points'...

Rather, it should serve as a guidepost that there's similarity and commonality among us, among those who suffer from said symptoms and conditions.

While I understand the concept of individuality, and mental health isn't entirely exempt from that, there has to be objectivity to what we are experiencing, collectively, as human beings.

Yes, triggers might be different, our coping mechanisms might be different, or even our presentation might be different. If we view it from a scientific point of view, there has to be a common theme shared across, so that we, especially clinicians, are able to generate treatments to assist.

I've come across too many clinicians out there (let alone some whose training shouldn't even provide them the expertise to provide a diagnosis), take an extreme stance to entirely reject the usage of DSM-V or ICD-11, claiming those criteria within aren't sufficient to cover what their clients are experiencing.

Yes, that's correct; as scientific exploration, much like what we have in those guides isn't and shouldn't be perfect. We have to constantly build onto what our predecessors have done so that we can better develop assessment tools and treatment modes to assist our clients and for our generations.

Humans evolve, and so should science and research.

However, purely riding on the concept of DSM-V and ICD-11 ran by big corrupted organizations but yet, refusing to contribute scientifically, doesn't seem to help with the battle.

In fact, what it does create is a trend where everything is OK, and this is where we have to understand the impact of this trend.

Let me ask you this question; if everything is OK, what is not OK?

If all of us are on some kind of spectrums of A DISORDER (I'm using a specific term here, as many would claim themselves to have an actual disorder, instead of some signs/symptoms which don't necessarily constitute a full diagnosis), then shouldn't that make us the norm?

With that said, what's the role of a clinician like yourself?

Simply being a supporter? Or simply being 'there'?

Battling for those who aren't able and have a lack of ability to voice out due to stigma and discrimination is great and noble. You and I share this same sentiment.

But I would invite you to view it from a scientist's view, as you, the clinicians should, given that you receive actual training in scientific programs, regardless of whether you are a clinical psychologist, counselor, or even a social worker.

I've said this many times, and I will say it again.

Mental health conditions or disorders shouldn't be a simple word that we use lightly. It should carry a certain weight, where being diagnosed isn't just for validation, but it should help us then replicate treatment plans, not just for one client but for the people we serve.

Call me a gatekeeper if you wish. But I would like to gatekeep the fact that my clients aren't being given random diagnoses simply because they feel like they can or they want.

Rather, they are given because they are suffering, and these sufferings are observed not just subjectively but also objectively.

Mental health isn't just about what we think. It's not as invisible as we think.

It's objective, and it's in our face. It's only our ignorance that makes us believe that they are all just about what we feel.

2 cents.

#mentalhealth #mentalhealthprofessionals #psychology #clinicalpsychologist #reflection #learning #thinkthoughts #linkedin