Enid Peschel

Consumerism for neurobiological disorders. An assessment.

Consumerism is a growing phenomenon in U.S. health care, yet its exercise is still inhibited by powerful forces within the medical community. Despite the neuroscientific framework that stresses the commonalities between mental and physical illness, consumerism is even more problematic and difficult in mental health care than in other areas of health care. People with severe mental illness and their advocates must contend with limited public understanding of neurobiological disorders, poor definitions of effective treatment, and a paucity of outcome data, especially from prospective randomized and long-term studies. The only clear way for consumerism to grow in mental health care is for its advocates to align themselves with the neuroscientific revolution and to demand that effective and equitable treatment programs be created based on the documented evidence of the physical nature of neurobiological disorders.

Neuropathiatry: new language necessitated by the neuroscience revolution

A revolution in science often requires a revolution in language to convey its meaning. New words have been developed to translate new scientific findings into understanding and policies. For example, heliocentric universe, evolution, asepsis, bacteriology, electronics, and computers are scientifically generated terms that were once considered revolutionary; some were adjudged heretical. Even though scientific revolutions are based on observable, reproducible, and verifiable evidence, they are not always greeted with general enthusiasm or even acceptance. For instance, in 1633 Galileo was condemned to death by the Inquisition for having explained that the universe was heliocentric, instead of geocentric. To have his sentence commuted to house arrest, the Italian astronomer and physicist had to recant his scientific findings. Some 350 years later, in 1993, long after Western society had accepted Galileos once revolutionary thesis, Pope John Paul II declared that the universe actually was heliocentric. Scientific revolutions in medicine are not necessarily received with enthusiasm either. In 1628, defying the long-held belief that the heart was the seat of the soul, William Harvey published On the Movement of the Heart and Blood in Animals, which explained that the heart was a pump in the body. For 20 years many members of the medical hierarchy ignored or fiercely criticized Harvey, including some who had observed his demonstrations.

Sociomedical Perspectives on Patient Care

ABSTRACT Can the social sciences make important contributions to clinical medicine? After one reads Sociomedical Perspectives on Patient Care, the answer must be a resounding yes. A rich mosaic of 14 chapters written by more than 20 multidisciplinary scholars and social scientists, this book covers a broad range of topics on the doctor-patient relationship. The results are so provocative and stimulating that we enthusiastically recommend the book to everyone interested in medicine. A brief discussion of three chapters should give a flavor of its scope and power.Physicians are all too familiar with modern technology and how rapid scientific discoveries are revolutionizing the practice of medicine. For example, the neuroscience revolution is forcing us to alter the very way that we view ourselves in the universe. Lest we assume that rapid social and scientific changes are unique to our generation and that only our contemporaries resist the consequences of new scientific