Dangerous lack of mental health care

Steinhauer said:
yet you completely missed the word "attempted" in my post.
Click to expand...

Didn't miss it at all. Playing semantics doesn't make your accusation any more credible. And which APA are you referring to?
 
jillio said:
didn't miss it at all. Playing semantics doesn't make your accusation any more credible. And which apa are you referring to?
Click to expand...

dsm-iv

in the DSM-IV, the APA changed its criteria in a way that made room for the psychologically normal type of pedophile. A person who molested children was considered to have a psychiatric disorder only if his actions "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning." In other words, a man who molested children without remorse, and without experiencing significant impairment in his social and work relationships, could be diagnosed--at least theoretically--as a "psychologically normal" type of pedophile.
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer said:
dsm-iv
Click to expand...

I need a citation for your quote. I happen to have a copy of the DSM-IV (R) right here in front of me. No normalizing contained therein. And the quote you have posted is false, to say the least.

And, again I ask, of which APA are you speaking?
 
jillio said:
I need a citation for your quote. I happen to have a copy of the DSM-IV (R) right here in front of me. No normalizing contained therein. And the quote you have posted is false, to say the least.

And, again I ask, of which APA are you speaking?
Click to expand...

Do you have the one issued in 1994?
 
Steinhauer said:
Do you have the one issued in 1994?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. Again, cite your quote. Not only is it ethical, it is required by the forum. And why exactly is it that you will not specify which APA you are referring to?
 
jillio said:
Yes, I do. Again, cite your quote. Not only is it ethical, it is required by the forum. And why exactly is it that you will not specify which APA you are referring to?
Click to expand...

I know all about ethics too:

Page 285, paragraph B of Diagnostic criteria for 302.20 Pedophilia


very clear attempt to normalize pedophilia.

Now, what was that you were saying about ethics?


In DSM-IV, Paragraph B of the same section, page 528, is changed to read, "The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Simply acting out on the urges is no longer a basis for pedophilia being considered a disorder. If the individual is not distressed or impaired by what he is doing, then to the psychiatric community, it is healthy behavior.


My last word here is going to be ....... ick!
 
Steinhauer said:
I know all about ethics too:

Page 285, paragraph B of Diagnostic criteria for 302.20 Pedophilia
Click to expand...

Obviously you don't know all about ethics. The quote you posted is not contained in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. Cite the quote, and specify which APA you are referring to. Very simple things to do. You are simply digging a great big hole for yourself at this point.
 
jillio said:
Obviously you don't know all about ethics. The quote you posted is not contained in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. Cite the quote, and specify which APA you are referring to. Very simple things to do. You are simply digging a great big hole for yourself at this point.
Click to expand...

Really?

The citations referenced can be looked up by ANYONE. I don't need a super secret copy of YOUR manual. :giggle:


pdf-previewaxd.png



Lots and I mean LOTS of research papers have been published on this attempt.


edited: Just an additional note - in post #79 you even recognized that mental health practitioners can be "bought off" for their expertise.

That is pretty much what I have been saying all along.
 
Steinhauer said:
I know all about ethics too:

Page 285, paragraph B of Diagnostic criteria for 302.20 Pedophilia


very clear attempt to normalize pedophilia.

Now, what was that you were saying about ethics?


In DSM-IV, Paragraph B of the same section, page 528, is changed to read, "The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Simply acting out on the urges is no longer a basis for pedophilia being considered a disorder. If the individual is not distressed or impaired by what he is doing, then to the psychiatric community, it is healthy behavior.


My last word here is going to be ....... ick!
Click to expand...

Well, you've dug yourself in quite nicely. You obviously don't know which APA you refer to, and have yet to cite your quotes.

From the DSM: "It is important to understand that experiencing distress about having the fantasies, urges, or behaviors is not necessary for a diagnosis of Pedophilia. Because of the ego syntonic nature of Pedophilia, many individuals with pedophilic fantasies, urges, or behaviors do not experience significant distress."

Maybe you need to leave reading diagnostic manuals to the people trained to understand them. You have misinterpreted completely.:roll: Your quote, as well as your accusations, have been shown to be completely false.
 
jillio said:
Well, you've dug yourself in quite nicely. You obviously don't know which APA you refer to, and have yet to cite your quotes.

From the DSM: "It is important to understand that experiencing distress about having the fantasies, urges, or behaviors is not necessary for a diagnosis of Pedophilia. Because of the ego syntonic nature of Pedophilia, many individuals with pedophilic fantasies, urges, or behaviors do not experience significant distress."

Maybe you need to leave reading diagnostic manuals to the people trained to understand them. You have misinterpreted completely.:roll: Your quote, as well as your accusations, have been shown to be completely false.
Click to expand...

Typical liberal .. argument (no offense).

I do have a brain and I know how to use it dear.

You even admitted that mental health practitioners are crooks. (post #79).
 
Steinhauer said:
Typical liberal .. argument (no offense).

I do have a brain and I know how to use it dear.

You even admitted that mental health practitioners are crooks. (post #79).
Click to expand...

My, my. Ad Hominem attacks. A sure sign that you have absolutely nothing to defend your position with.

You certainly aren't using your brain in this instance.

No where did I admit that mental health practitioners are crooks. You seem to have a problem with your reading comprehension this evening: with both the DSM and my posts. Not to mention an inability to cite your quotes and identify which organization you are referring to. I suspect you don't even know what APA stands for, nor that there are 2 organizations with the acronym.

You are in over your head on this one. The only thing to be gained now is to end looking like a fool.
 
does anyone think that having only 13 eating disorder inpatient beds in new zealand is a good thing?
 
Steinhauer said:
Typical liberal .. argument (no offense).

I do have a brain and I know how to use it dear.

You even admitted that mental health practitioners are crooks. (post #79).
Click to expand...

Typical conspiracy theorist gun-nuts over-generalization.

If you're going to sling feces about "liberal arguments," expect some to be slung back.
 
inmate23 said:
does anyone think that having only 13 eating disorder inpatient beds in new zealand is a good thing?
Click to expand...

No. But it would also depend on the incidence and prevalence of eating disorders in that area. Eating disorders are most often treated out patient.
 
Back
Top