Talk:Child and adolescent psychiatry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] POV

I moved this comment that was posted to the main article. Chupper 03:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say that psychiatrists don't take into account enviromental or social aspects in understanding behavior problems in children and adolescents. It is also inaccurate to say that child/adol psychiatrists only use the medical approach. The criticism parragraph is inaccurate. The board certification process ensures that child psychiatrists use a bio-psycho-social approach to understanding and treating ALL of the child and adolsecent psychiatric diagnosis. In addition, the diagnostic criteria used is consistent with the DSM-IV-TR which unifies most views in order to do research. I completely disagree with the view expressed in that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.59.81 (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering its unreferenced, I've removed the criticisms section. Chupper 03:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of content

[edit] Censorship

It is censorship to remove text just because you don't agree with it without discussion.

In fact, the problemns of reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnosis are acknowledged within the profession and supported by research evidence - most of this focused on adults but the research with children shows that these problems are even greater.

I don't have time, over the next two weeks, to provide references, but I certainly will do this.

The position that paragraph takes is one supported by significant members of the psychiatric profession in Britain - Sami Timimi for example, also members of the academic community and the critical psychiatry adherents.

Please put the text back, cease your censorship, and engage in a proper discussion - I won't be able to do this, though, for the next two weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore (talk • contribs) 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have replaced the original text with the addition of references and links to web pages that substantiate these claims. I will provide brief summaries of these references as I go on. I intend to add more references and also links to other pages on the Wikipedia site.

Any further discussion of these issues must be limited to debate about the issues rather than censoring perspectives on this issue. It is well recognised that, within the psychiatric profession, there are legitimate disagreements about these issues - but there is no reason to censor one position or one voice. Please use the civilized method of discussion and debate - not censorship or removal of one perspective because it does not fit into your own world view. This is not legitimate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore (talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 September 2007

[edit] Response

Birchmore - a few things.

  1. This isn't censorship - it's the fact that it is unreferenced. Unreferenced information can be removed at any time. That and the fact that Wikipedia frowns upon "criticism" sections are the reasons it was removed. However I've thrown up tags instead of just removing the content again. When working with editors, please assume good faith. I'm not here to censor you and I'm not out here to get you ;).
  2. Please stop reinserting the comment made by the user with the IP "68.175.59.81". He/she was making a comment about the article, not improving the article. As you should be able to see above, I've moved that comment here.
  3. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by using "~~~~".

Thanks. Chupper 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. Nearly 40% of this article's text is in the "Criticisms" section. We have to keep the article NPOV by keeping it balanced. Beyond adding references to the criticisms section, it would be helpful if you could add in information about the profession, why its a subspecialty of psychiatry, etc. Chupper 17:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

OK, thank you.

How do I directly link the information in the text with the references. So, for example "Elephants have four legs" with the reference "Meta-Analytic Study of the Locomotive Prospects of Bovine Species. J. Elephant Studies. 5, 124-243". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem - glad I could help. For references its real simple. When you want a specific sentence referenced, just type --> <ref>Smith, J. (2004) Meta-Analytic Study of the Locomotive Prospects of Bovine Species. ''J. Elephant Studies, 5'', 124-243</ref> (I was using APA style there). Make sure you add the ref tags in after any punctuation. If you are adding a controversial content, I'd recommend tagging every sentence. It can also be good to use several references for one sentence, especially if its very controversial. I've noticed for the general references you've included several works from the author "Sami Timimi". I know when I try to write an article I try to use a wide variety of references. If you can include any others, that would be great.
If you need more info on how to use inline cites/footnotes, visit Wikipedia:Footnotes. I'll add in the reflist template so you can get right to work on it. Chupper 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And I forgot to mention this - when you put the ref tag up at the sentence you are referencing - it will add a footnote style superscript number after the sentence. A live list can then be accessed via the bottom of the page, usually in a "Notes" section. Take a look at Emergency psychiatry - that's an article I've written which uses ref tags. Chupper 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

Thanks for the advice, I will investigate as I go on and add the appropriate tags.

Just one issue: you dispute the accuracy of the criticisms section - but I am not saying that the criticisms are true or valid - only that there have been increasing criticisms linked to the increased reliance on diagnostic systems over the years, the growth of diagnoses of ADHD, autism, etc. This statement is correct - there have been increasing criticisms and the publications cited and the weblinks are evidence of this. Could you, then, remove the questionable accuracy tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore (talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, lots of references! Very cool.
Alright, the dispute tag is up because both I & the editor above ("POV" section) don't agree with the the focus of the paragraph, the way it is right now. Take a look at this - :Traditional deficit and disease models of child psychiatry have been criticised as rooted in the medical model which conceptualises adjustment problems in terms of disease states. That is, they explicitly characterise problematic behavior as representing a disorder within the child or young person. It has become increasingly apparent, since the early 1990s, that the role of environmental influences on behaviour has become increasingly neglected, leading to a decrease in popularity of, for example, family therapy.
  • It implies that mental health professionals only use a medical model, or phrased in a better way, only see these problems as biological. This is wrong.
  • It has been increasingly apparent that social factors are ignored during a diagnosis? Who is that apparent to? Where is this apparent?
Take a look at the sentence I just wrote for the psychiatry article I'm rewriting -
A psychiatric diagnosis utilizes a differential diagnosis procedure where mental status examinations and physical examinations are conducted, pathological, psychopathological and psychosocial histories obtained, neuroimages or other neurophysiological measurements are taken, and personality tests or cognitive tests may be administered.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In addition psychiatrists are beginning to utilize genetics during the diagnostic process.[8] Some endophenotypes being researched may predispose certain individuals to certain conditions.[9][10]
There are a wide variety of things looked at during a diagnosis, and psychosocial histories are one of them. I think the bottom line is both the other user and I don't agree with the implications of the paragraph. Not to mention we still have nothing, beyond a history and criticism, written about the actual subspecialty. Maybe it would be better if these points were brought up following a statement on when child psychs take psychosocial histories? (Take a look - Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure. Good text though, it should be integrated into the article, whenever it gets written and whenever the incorrect stuff gets removed. I can see how psychosocial considerations could be ignored, but we need to say this in an NPOV and factual way. Chupper 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Chupper, I don't dispute that child psychiatrists take social histories but the point is how they are used - and in the UK the predominant trend has been one of increased medicalization of childhood emotional problems and a focus on the child as the locus of pathology rather than, as in systemic theory, viewing the "identified problem" as a node within a disturbed network. See Timimi and other for further information about the "medicalisation of childhood" over the past 20 years.

I think we are using different languages and suppositions but you are claiming that yours is dominant and superior and should drown out other perspectives.

You should know that I have written the whole of this article: every word, link, reference, both in line with the medical model and from another perspective. I have tried to be inclusive and to write about every perspective. Your intervention has caused me to add more material along one viewpoint. I intend to add more from the dominant medical model perspective. I would not want Wikipedia to priviledge either viewpoint.

In contrast, you have only criticised and censored. You have not added one word to this article or contributed in any positive way.

Someone, somewhere, said that it is the easiest thing in the world to criticise and destroy, the difficult task is to create and build.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 October 2007

Someone, somewhere, said that it is the easiest thing in the world to criticise and destroy, the difficult task is to create and build.
I guess all my other work on Wikipedia has been of no value.
you are claiming that yours is dominant and superior and should drown out other perspectives.
I don't remember saying that... Weren't we having a discussion about how to improve the article?
Chupper, I don't dispute that child psychiatrists take social histories but the point is how they are used - and in the UK the predominant trend has been one of increased medicalization of childhood emotional problems and a focus on the child as the locus of pathology rather than, as in systemic theory, viewing the "identified problem" as a node within a disturbed network. See Timimi and other for further information about the "medicalisation of childhood" over the past 20 years.
Great information! But the article is unbalanced! That is all I'm saying.
Shes all yours, Chupper 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)