![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Looking to edit this page for a class assignment, and was thinking of using the sources as follows: Some sources I have gathered based on my topic thus far include: - Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research, 6th ed. by Howard S. Friedman and Miriam W. Schustack - https://www.clpsychiatry.org (the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine) - Psychosomatic Medicine, edited by Kurt D. Ackerman and Andrea F. Dimartini - Psychosomatic Medicine: An Introduction to Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry, edited by James J. Amos and Robert G. Robinson - https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/professional-interests/consultation-liaison-psychiatry==Psychosomatic cf. Psychogenic== {{taken from sandbox}} Bail2 ( talk) 01:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Bail2
If anyone knows the difference between a psychosomatic illness and a psychogenic one, that would be a useful bit of information to throw into the article.
Just what I wanted to say ... and it has great importance. I believe this article and related articles about "psychosomatic" illness neeed to be placed into a proper linguistic and scientific/philosophical framework and currently are not.
OK HERE GOES >>>>> No one has responded at all regarding the material I have written below. I am going toplace it in the article as a BOLD piece of editing.
-- Zigzagzen 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see something along the lines of the following material added to the pages so that it is clear there is much debate about the reality of these "conditions". I would welcome other contributors thoughts on the material I have written below in this context. I have not edited the page as I realise the material here may be quite controversial.
This article and the science behind it are controversial on two grounds. The first is an etymological error that has crept into medicine. The second is the failure of medical practitioners to be realistic about the current limitations of medicine itself.
The Etymological Error
Psychosomatic means "relating to mind and body". This article and related articles on Somatization disorder and Conversion disorder actually relate to an entirely different class of problems that better labelled "psychogenetic". Psychogenetic means "originating in the mind", from the latin psychicus - meaning "belonging to the soul" and genesis - meaning "origin or source".
The Infallible Doctor Error
Doctors sometimes like to explain the things they can not explain by blaming the mind of their patients. If doctors said "we do not understand this" they would be showing themselves as limited humans - like the rest of us. This is an ego-centric disorder inherent in the minds of psychiatric and medical doctors and not in the minds of the patients concerned.
Instead of admitting their own - and western medicines' - limitations they have invented a whole raft of "psychosomatic" problems and disorders that might not exist, but actually confirm the current limitations of medical science.
-- Zigzagzen 10:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The article says that "There were times when almost any illnesses suffered by women were ascribed to hysteria, while anything men suffered from was not, since it was believed men did not suffer from hysteria. This view has changed since World War I, when men started to return from the front with what was called 'shell-shock syndrome'," this information seems a little more erudite than common knowledge and should be cited. It isn't very credible otherwise. Muggwort17 14:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The article had a small chart or box overlying the text at the top right of the viewed page. It spelled out two classifications for this subject and stated links to classification charts. Those were "ICD-10 code F-45" and "ICD-9 code 306.9". Neither of those links mentioned anything about "psychosomatic illness" either in heading nor in item and I intend to remove those links. First they are in the wrong place, overlaying the text which introduces the subject. Second, they are not germane, they do not directly pertain to the subject of what psychosomatic illness is nor how it manifests. Terryeo 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This article looks like it could have some good potential. In reference to the ICD box, it would seem that they do point to the same thing, however that is an underlying problem. Somatoform_disorders, Somatization_disorder, and Psychosomatic illness are all refering to the same basic condition. Something should be done to either remove, merge or clean up the articles. Tom Foolery 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Weatherlawyer ( talk) 10:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No, no, no... psychosomatic disorders are completely different from somatoform disorders. Psychosomatic disorders are physical illnesses that are caused in part by a psychological factor. Somatoform disorders are when there is nothing physically wrong with the patient. The reason psychosomatic is falling out of psychological grace is that doctors are realizing that more and more diseases are caused by psychological factors. For instance, stress lowers the immune systems ability to function, so a common cold has the potential to be psychosomatic. It may not be, but in many cases a cold is psychosomatic. Of course, the same holds true for blood pressure. When I'm less busy I'll try to update using an intro to psych book (all we really need for this sort of article). Werefrog 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
NO NON NON NO ..... see what I have written above .. you are discussing Pschogenetic/Psychogenic problems and using the Psychosomatic etymological error I have discussed.
At root here of all the psychological and philosophical discusions are two historical errors 1) Descartes error of separating mind and body into different universes and 2) Freud's error of changing his theory: he first said “my patients were sexually interfered with when they were children and show improved functioning when they talk about it”, but later said “my patients have really vivid imaginations and are kind of fu**ed up”. This was because the Vienniese Aristocracy who made up his clients just were not ready to deal with the demons of child abuse and the fact that it was rife in their society. If these guys had not made the errors they had psychology and medicine would not be in such a mess today over these issues.
-- Zigzagzen 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
"O NON NON NO ..... see what I have written above .. you are discussing Pschogenetic/Psychogenic problems and using the Psychosomatic etymological error I have discussed." Here's the problem with that: this is the way psychologists use the word. It doesn't matter if it's an error in the etymology. We have to use the technical, scientific definition. You can put in a note saying that in the common vernacular use it differently. You can even mention the etymology. BUT the article has to be about the standard scientific definition. Werefrog 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph: "Psychosomatic symptoms show that a human body can create physical symptoms that compensate for relationship deficiencies. (For example, hypnosis-induced allergic reactions indicate that a person's immune response can dramatically change during an intense relationship)." Makes a conclusion. It states that because symptoms manifest we can conclude the cause is "the human body has created physical symtoms." May I point out, this article is about psycho-somatic. A statement that says, "the human body injures itself" may be a perfectly fine, wonderful statement. But that statement is not cited, that statement is poorly worded and is difficult to glean meaning from and probably, that statement belongs deeper into the article under a subheading something like, "There are no psychosomantic illnesses, instead, the body hurts itself. So, I'm going to remove that portion to this page unless someone discusses and cites how "Body hurts itself" is germane to "psychosomatic". Terryeo 00:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"They also claim to cure arthritis, radiation poisoning, cancer, [1] and, according to a 1995 brochure, "70 percent of Man's illnesses". [2]" is so completely untrue that it is laughable. To only quote a second party source which gives an opinion about what the source opinionates is laughable. I this case it is also untrue. Dianetics doesn't claim to cure physical ills. The Dianetics site takes particular care to be very sure they make no such claim or implication. The E-Meter court fiassco, years ago, made sure Dianetics makes no such public claims. Why not find a quote where they claim the moon is made of green cheese? heh ! Terryeo 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've see several quotes in other sites that claim the the NIH has established that nine out of ten fatal diseases has a psychosomatic component and also that the NIH has established that two thirds of all ilnesses have a psychosomatic influence. Does anyone know of a reliable reference for these claims? Renaissance Healer
I've been trying to find a definition of soma beyond the general definition that "soma" means body given in the discussion thread. The Wikipedia article on Soma makes no reference to this meaning as far as I can find. My sense is that Soma is an expanded sense of the body that includes energy systems, chakras, auras, etc. Does anyone have any suggestions about this?
Should we really mention Scientology in this page? It isn't necessary, none of the methods scientology use have any basis in science (ironic, considering their name) and they are actually opposed to psychiatry.
Is it psychosomatic if it's caused entirely by one's thinking, attitude, or emotions? Or is the psychological aspect just one factor?
The above quote implies that a physical disorder can be caused in part by emotions and thought patterns. -- Wing Nut 19:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand the term psychosomatic has historically been used to mean that, but is presently construed as to indicate conditions that present physiological and psychological manifestations. On the other hand, physiological conditions caused (or at least triggered) by psychoemotional factors are referred to as psychogenous. This doesn't appear to be the same as
somatoform, for on the current Wikipedia definition that only means a condition "for which no adequate medical explanation has been found", i.e., a relevant organic disorder hasn't been isolated.
On the current wikipedia ref, functional symptoms are described as having "no current visible organic basis, e.g. if they are a result of psychological or perceptual dysfunction", but other circumstances could concur.
S
I don't believe that these should be categorized as psychosomatic. I think they are better categorized as neuroses, but I expect that the psychologists have more specific, somewhat different categories for them. The reason I don't think they are psychosomatic is that, as I understand it, psychosomatic illnesses create symptoms of real degenerative processes in the body, whereas anorexia and bulemia create actions by the individual against their own body. The psychosomatic process is covert and the anorexic / bulemic actions are overt. The a / b patient overtly witholds food or induces regurgitation. 68.164.88.178 09:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It may not be very helpful, but I want to draw peoples' attention to the German article which I find excellent; in accordance with the state of the art of medical science and psychotherapy. It's also critical enough towards popular "pseudo"-psychosomatic beliefs and ideology.
Friedhelm, Germany, 30 August 2006
The history section needs some serious attention. No mention of Freud, Neurasthenia, Charcot, or of doctors' views on the causes of psychosomatic illness (the uterus in hysteria, reflexology, magnetism, etc.) and the legion of quacks who tried (and succeeded) in curing psychosomatic patients from the 18th century to the present day. I don't have time to do this right now, but if anyone else wants to make some contributions please go ahead.
For anyone interested in the history of psychosomatic illness I would strongly recommend Shorter's "From Paralysis to Fatigue: a History of Psychosomatic Illness in the Modern Era". In fact, that is the only good book on psychsomatic illness that seems to be out there.
-- Sciencewatcher 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the psychosomatic disorders may be bidirectional, not only imposed by the mind on the body but also physical processes producing mental disorders may classify as psychosomatic as well even if there is not a consensus about that. For example hormonal disorders may have rebouncing effects and become psychosomatic I.e. hormonal imbalance>depression>anorexia I will see if I find citations that are solid because most are contradictory Librarian2 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
What about redirecting or linking to PNI ? What do you think? Can you anyhow put a template of WP:MED ? I cannot find it Librarian2 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've heard of him described as the "father of psychosomatic medicine"... Critic9328 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Much of the 'History' section of this article appears to have been taken, almost word for word, from this web page from the NLM titled: Psychosomatic Medicine: "The Puzzling Leap". That website requests that "National Library of Medicine (NLM) be given appropriate acknowledgement" if the text is used elsewhere. — BillC talk 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Add: and some of the intro has come verbatim from this book review. — BillC talk 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Starting with this: "There is also a probable psychological influence in the development and outcome of conditions such as migraines." This is not only unproven but unaccepted by leading neurologists. While Wikipedia entries on physics and other hard sciences tend to be quite good, anything to do with psychiatry is a heap of conjecture and outright quackery. 68.58.2.232 ( talk) 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Power of suggestion currently redirects here to psychosomatic medicine. While there is a brief mentioning of using suggestion by an authority figure to help alleviate psychosomatic symptoms, it would seem much more appropriate to redirect that to the general Suggestion page. Mmortal03 ( talk) 04:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is listed here as a psychosomatic illness. There is a growing mountain of evidence that it is purely physiological in cause and cure. It is possible that stress may contribute but that can be said of many illnesses.
Indeed, the suggestion by psychiatrists for the last 20 years that M.E. is psychological, may turn out to be one of the greatest malpractices of modern medicine. Where is the critical concession that many psychosomatic illness have turned out to be physiological ?
To keep a consistent tone, I invite one of the regular authors of this topic to make the corrections suggested by at least removing Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from the list.
-- X86dude ( talk) 06:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of ME/CFS not being psychosomatic, check out this story --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7378440.stm
It is old news to anyone informed about ME/CFS, the gene expression findings have been around for a few years, they are just refining them until that magical diagnostic test appears and then ME/CFS will be viewed as legitimate as Multiple Sclerosis - rememeber the psychiatrists used to call MS "hysterical paralysis" before the MRI showed the lesions on the brain...
Also while I'm at it, the same can be said for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity --> http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/30187005cp.shtml
Hope someone corrects this article, I'm only new here so don't want to step on any toes.
Cheers Ash H —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash H ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Under the header Treatment, it reads: "Unlike hypochondria (which some mistakenly think is the same thing as psychosomatic illness), sufferers of a psychosomatic illness are experiencing real pain, real nausea, or other real physically felt symptoms, but with no cause that can be diagnosed."
According to the DSM-IV-TR, hypochondriasis is a somatoform disorder, which is itself a type of psychosomatic disorder. Therefore, hypochondriasis is a psychosomatic disorder. Since there's no source for the initial clause in the sentence quoted above, I'm removing it immediately. svadhisthana ( talk) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Those with hypochondriasis do, in fact, experience real symptoms. However, they tend to psychologically exaggerate those symptoms, leading to a fixation that convinces them that they have a severe physical condition.
I have tagged this article as NPOV since it contains several tendentious, unsourced statements that suggest a number of organic diseases to be psychosomatic. Do not remove the template until this is resolved. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 00:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Psychosomatic medicine is an interdisciplinary medical field studying psychosomatic illness, now more commonly referred to as psychophysiologic illness or disorder, whose symptoms are caused by mental processes of the sufferer rather than immediate physiological causes. These syndromes are classified as neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders by the World Health Organization in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.
My pov does not go into any Wikipedia article. If I have one, it goes into an essay. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I have removed migraine from the list since the reference provided by SW was about comorbidity, not cause. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Guido: how is personality "co-morbid"? The article concluded that personality and psychosomatic factors were important in the development of migraines.
Tekaphor: if you want to take a go at improving the article, feel free. Certainly there are psychosomatic factors for many illnesses, and for some illnesses it plays a larger part than others. The difference is that for CFS many researchers believe that it is purely psychosomatic, so it should be included here. If you can suggest a better reference, great. -- Sciencewatcher ( talk) 18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tekaphor, I guess we can reach consensus here now. My suggestion is to put in a general remark that psychological factors can influence risk and course of physical diseases, without mentioning any disorder in particular. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason to still have the pov tag? I noticed Guido has added a cite-check tag too. -- Sciencewatcher ( talk) 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There is adequate evidence, which I have given and which is in the CFS article - you just choose not to look at it. And if you have a look above you'll see the comment from the WHO that you posted saying that psychosomatic illnesses are classed as stress-related. It seems that further discussion is pointless. -- Sciencewatcher ( talk) 23:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to rewrite the disputed text to reflect all sides. CFS is still mentioned, but with a historical component rather than suggesting two equal camps in 2008. I hope this can satisfy everyone. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 07:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"Including, but not limited to" is lawyer-speak and is unnecessary since "including" implies additional items already. -- Unimath ( talk) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sciencewatcher,
I'm the editor who reverted some of your recent changes to the Psychosomatic medicine page. I think you have a point about my wording, which wasn't great. But I'm concerned that the way you have re-expressed things implies the evidence for a role for stress in peptic ulcer is strong. I do not think this is the case. The article you cite by Fink as support for this claim presents the following evidence:
- the lack of 100% correspondence between presence of H pylori and peptic ulcer. This doesn't demonstrate a role of mental stress specifically, and it has already been mentioned earlier in the WP page
- the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake was followed by a significant increase in the number of people with peptic ulceration (doesn't demonstrate a mental stress link, could be a hygiene issue, or any number of things).
- the high rate of stomach ulcers amongst the physically injured and those with severe burns (independent of H pylori). This is very different from the idea of "mental stress" that is being claimed by the author. Its a huge stretch! - references to other people's opinions, arguments, conclusions (Creed, Levenstein). Just citing someone who agrees with the author is obviously not evidence.
None of these claims provides supporting evidence for the statement that stress plays a role in peptic ulcer. To state such a thing in WP, we need supporting evidence. Otherwise it must remain a "position" or a "view" as I was trying to empahsise (but perhaps not very prettily).
More generally, we need to find a way of presenting the views of the psychosomatic medicine which is fair to their perspective, but does not simply present their hypotheses as uncontroversial fact (their perspective has come under a lot of criticism of late, and some appears to be well justified in my view).
Your thoughts welcome on how to resolve.
Wilshica
-- Wilshica ( talk) 07:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but then what you have in your supporting reference is essentially some person's opinion, this needs to made clear. I will have another go trying to avoid the weasel words, while still getting across the poor evidence and controversy regarding some of these claims.
-- Wilshica ( talk) 22:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/gasn.2015.13.2.16 -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 23:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any references for this issue, so I'm raising it on the talk page in the hope that some might be found.
The "it's all in your head" dismissal is very harmful because it is unfalsifiable. There are symptoms, the patient is told that they are lying, imagining it, or bringing it upon themselves with negative thoughts. There is no differential diagnosis, because the diagnosis of psychosomatic (or somatoform, or malingering...) is leapt to. Since the illness is not dealt with, the symptoms continue, which is taken as evidence that the patient has persisted in their pesky self-harm-via-thought.
I recall a time when I went to my GP with cramps. One would presume that he might start with the assumption that I had cramps, go through some sort of differential diagnosis to work out the cause and a sensible path forward. Instead, I made the mistake of suggesting what I thought the cause might be. His response was a cunty "I wonder whether you had them before you read about that." He wrote out my regular prescriptions, and the consultation ended. He didn't even check that I'd learnt that particular cause of low electrolytes before my cramps started or not. He just decided it was definitely psychosomatic, and abandoned me to my cramps --- which did actually continue until I removed that cause.
I'm pretty sure that's not a rare occurrence: the fact that a patient suggests a diagnosis is taken as evidence for an alternative diagnosis of "it's all in your head". This creates a perverse situation where an ignorant patient is treated properly, but a well-read patient is abandoned to their painful symptoms with no further investigation.
Hopefully someone has looked into this somewhere. Correctrix ( talk) 04:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
(Comment simultaneously posted on the three relevant talk pages.)
There appears to be a disconnect between the definition of "psychosomatic" in use for the Psychogenic disease, Psychosomatic medicine, and Somatic symptom disorder pages.
Psychogenic disease describes it as "illnesses with a known medical cause where psychological factors may nonetheless play a role (e.g., asthma can be exacerbated by anxiety)."
Somatic symptom disorder, which is the redirect for "psychosomatic," doesn't directly reference the word at all in the body of the article, but if we assume from the redirect that the two words are implied to be synonymous, it is "any mental disorder that manifests as physical symptoms that suggest illness or injury, but cannot be explained fully by a general medical condition or by the direct effect of a substance, and are not attributable to another mental disorder (e.g., panic disorder)." Already, these two conflict.
Psychosomatic medicine corroborates the definition used in Psychogenic illness, saying "in contemporary psychosomatic medicine, the term is normally restricted to those illnesses that do have a clear physical basis, but where it is believed that psychological and mental factors also play a role." But it further states that "psychiatry traditionally distinguishes between psychosomatic disorders, disorders in which mental factors play a significant role in the development, expression, or resolution of a physical illness, and somatoform disorders, disorders in which mental factors are the sole cause of a physical illness."
It also appears to use the terms "psychosomatic" and "psychogenic" interchangeably (or without a clarified distinction) without linking to Psychogenic disease.
As Somatic symptom disorder is the redirect for somatoform disorder, this now means Psychosomatic medicine claims two of its redirects are distinct concepts.
This appears to be a tangle in need of cleaning up and I do not know how to approach it. Aliengeometries ( talk) 05:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Looking to edit this page for a class assignment, and was thinking of using the sources as follows: Some sources I have gathered based on my topic thus far include: - Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research, 6th ed. by Howard S. Friedman and Miriam W. Schustack - https://www.clpsychiatry.org (the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine) - Psychosomatic Medicine, edited by Kurt D. Ackerman and Andrea F. Dimartini - Psychosomatic Medicine: An Introduction to Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry, edited by James J. Amos and Robert G. Robinson - https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/professional-interests/consultation-liaison-psychiatry==Psychosomatic cf. Psychogenic== {{taken from sandbox}} Bail2 ( talk) 01:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Bail2
If anyone knows the difference between a psychosomatic illness and a psychogenic one, that would be a useful bit of information to throw into the article.
Just what I wanted to say ... and it has great importance. I believe this article and related articles about "psychosomatic" illness neeed to be placed into a proper linguistic and scientific/philosophical framework and currently are not.
OK HERE GOES >>>>> No one has responded at all regarding the material I have written below. I am going toplace it in the article as a BOLD piece of editing.
-- Zigzagzen 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see something along the lines of the following material added to the pages so that it is clear there is much debate about the reality of these "conditions". I would welcome other contributors thoughts on the material I have written below in this context. I have not edited the page as I realise the material here may be quite controversial.
This article and the science behind it are controversial on two grounds. The first is an etymological error that has crept into medicine. The second is the failure of medical practitioners to be realistic about the current limitations of medicine itself.
The Etymological Error
Psychosomatic means "relating to mind and body". This article and related articles on Somatization disorder and Conversion disorder actually relate to an entirely different class of problems that better labelled "psychogenetic". Psychogenetic means "originating in the mind", from the latin psychicus - meaning "belonging to the soul" and genesis - meaning "origin or source".
The Infallible Doctor Error
Doctors sometimes like to explain the things they can not explain by blaming the mind of their patients. If doctors said "we do not understand this" they would be showing themselves as limited humans - like the rest of us. This is an ego-centric disorder inherent in the minds of psychiatric and medical doctors and not in the minds of the patients concerned.
Instead of admitting their own - and western medicines' - limitations they have invented a whole raft of "psychosomatic" problems and disorders that might not exist, but actually confirm the current limitations of medical science.
-- Zigzagzen 10:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The article says that "There were times when almost any illnesses suffered by women were ascribed to hysteria, while anything men suffered from was not, since it was believed men did not suffer from hysteria. This view has changed since World War I, when men started to return from the front with what was called 'shell-shock syndrome'," this information seems a little more erudite than common knowledge and should be cited. It isn't very credible otherwise. Muggwort17 14:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The article had a small chart or box overlying the text at the top right of the viewed page. It spelled out two classifications for this subject and stated links to classification charts. Those were "ICD-10 code F-45" and "ICD-9 code 306.9". Neither of those links mentioned anything about "psychosomatic illness" either in heading nor in item and I intend to remove those links. First they are in the wrong place, overlaying the text which introduces the subject. Second, they are not germane, they do not directly pertain to the subject of what psychosomatic illness is nor how it manifests. Terryeo 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This article looks like it could have some good potential. In reference to the ICD box, it would seem that they do point to the same thing, however that is an underlying problem. Somatoform_disorders, Somatization_disorder, and Psychosomatic illness are all refering to the same basic condition. Something should be done to either remove, merge or clean up the articles. Tom Foolery 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Weatherlawyer ( talk) 10:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No, no, no... psychosomatic disorders are completely different from somatoform disorders. Psychosomatic disorders are physical illnesses that are caused in part by a psychological factor. Somatoform disorders are when there is nothing physically wrong with the patient. The reason psychosomatic is falling out of psychological grace is that doctors are realizing that more and more diseases are caused by psychological factors. For instance, stress lowers the immune systems ability to function, so a common cold has the potential to be psychosomatic. It may not be, but in many cases a cold is psychosomatic. Of course, the same holds true for blood pressure. When I'm less busy I'll try to update using an intro to psych book (all we really need for this sort of article). Werefrog 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
NO NON NON NO ..... see what I have written above .. you are discussing Pschogenetic/Psychogenic problems and using the Psychosomatic etymological error I have discussed.
At root here of all the psychological and philosophical discusions are two historical errors 1) Descartes error of separating mind and body into different universes and 2) Freud's error of changing his theory: he first said “my patients were sexually interfered with when they were children and show improved functioning when they talk about it”, but later said “my patients have really vivid imaginations and are kind of fu**ed up”. This was because the Vienniese Aristocracy who made up his clients just were not ready to deal with the demons of child abuse and the fact that it was rife in their society. If these guys had not made the errors they had psychology and medicine would not be in such a mess today over these issues.
-- Zigzagzen 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
"O NON NON NO ..... see what I have written above .. you are discussing Pschogenetic/Psychogenic problems and using the Psychosomatic etymological error I have discussed." Here's the problem with that: this is the way psychologists use the word. It doesn't matter if it's an error in the etymology. We have to use the technical, scientific definition. You can put in a note saying that in the common vernacular use it differently. You can even mention the etymology. BUT the article has to be about the standard scientific definition. Werefrog 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph: "Psychosomatic symptoms show that a human body can create physical symptoms that compensate for relationship deficiencies. (For example, hypnosis-induced allergic reactions indicate that a person's immune response can dramatically change during an intense relationship)." Makes a conclusion. It states that because symptoms manifest we can conclude the cause is "the human body has created physical symtoms." May I point out, this article is about psycho-somatic. A statement that says, "the human body injures itself" may be a perfectly fine, wonderful statement. But that statement is not cited, that statement is poorly worded and is difficult to glean meaning from and probably, that statement belongs deeper into the article under a subheading something like, "There are no psychosomantic illnesses, instead, the body hurts itself. So, I'm going to remove that portion to this page unless someone discusses and cites how "Body hurts itself" is germane to "psychosomatic". Terryeo 00:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"They also claim to cure arthritis, radiation poisoning, cancer, [1] and, according to a 1995 brochure, "70 percent of Man's illnesses". [2]" is so completely untrue that it is laughable. To only quote a second party source which gives an opinion about what the source opinionates is laughable. I this case it is also untrue. Dianetics doesn't claim to cure physical ills. The Dianetics site takes particular care to be very sure they make no such claim or implication. The E-Meter court fiassco, years ago, made sure Dianetics makes no such public claims. Why not find a quote where they claim the moon is made of green cheese? heh ! Terryeo 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've see several quotes in other sites that claim the the NIH has established that nine out of ten fatal diseases has a psychosomatic component and also that the NIH has established that two thirds of all ilnesses have a psychosomatic influence. Does anyone know of a reliable reference for these claims? Renaissance Healer
I've been trying to find a definition of soma beyond the general definition that "soma" means body given in the discussion thread. The Wikipedia article on Soma makes no reference to this meaning as far as I can find. My sense is that Soma is an expanded sense of the body that includes energy systems, chakras, auras, etc. Does anyone have any suggestions about this?
Should we really mention Scientology in this page? It isn't necessary, none of the methods scientology use have any basis in science (ironic, considering their name) and they are actually opposed to psychiatry.
Is it psychosomatic if it's caused entirely by one's thinking, attitude, or emotions? Or is the psychological aspect just one factor?
The above quote implies that a physical disorder can be caused in part by emotions and thought patterns. -- Wing Nut 19:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand the term psychosomatic has historically been used to mean that, but is presently construed as to indicate conditions that present physiological and psychological manifestations. On the other hand, physiological conditions caused (or at least triggered) by psychoemotional factors are referred to as psychogenous. This doesn't appear to be the same as
somatoform, for on the current Wikipedia definition that only means a condition "for which no adequate medical explanation has been found", i.e., a relevant organic disorder hasn't been isolated.
On the current wikipedia ref, functional symptoms are described as having "no current visible organic basis, e.g. if they are a result of psychological or perceptual dysfunction", but other circumstances could concur.
S
I don't believe that these should be categorized as psychosomatic. I think they are better categorized as neuroses, but I expect that the psychologists have more specific, somewhat different categories for them. The reason I don't think they are psychosomatic is that, as I understand it, psychosomatic illnesses create symptoms of real degenerative processes in the body, whereas anorexia and bulemia create actions by the individual against their own body. The psychosomatic process is covert and the anorexic / bulemic actions are overt. The a / b patient overtly witholds food or induces regurgitation. 68.164.88.178 09:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It may not be very helpful, but I want to draw peoples' attention to the German article which I find excellent; in accordance with the state of the art of medical science and psychotherapy. It's also critical enough towards popular "pseudo"-psychosomatic beliefs and ideology.
Friedhelm, Germany, 30 August 2006
The history section needs some serious attention. No mention of Freud, Neurasthenia, Charcot, or of doctors' views on the causes of psychosomatic illness (the uterus in hysteria, reflexology, magnetism, etc.) and the legion of quacks who tried (and succeeded) in curing psychosomatic patients from the 18th century to the present day. I don't have time to do this right now, but if anyone else wants to make some contributions please go ahead.
For anyone interested in the history of psychosomatic illness I would strongly recommend Shorter's "From Paralysis to Fatigue: a History of Psychosomatic Illness in the Modern Era". In fact, that is the only good book on psychsomatic illness that seems to be out there.
-- Sciencewatcher 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the psychosomatic disorders may be bidirectional, not only imposed by the mind on the body but also physical processes producing mental disorders may classify as psychosomatic as well even if there is not a consensus about that. For example hormonal disorders may have rebouncing effects and become psychosomatic I.e. hormonal imbalance>depression>anorexia I will see if I find citations that are solid because most are contradictory Librarian2 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
What about redirecting or linking to PNI ? What do you think? Can you anyhow put a template of WP:MED ? I cannot find it Librarian2 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've heard of him described as the "father of psychosomatic medicine"... Critic9328 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Much of the 'History' section of this article appears to have been taken, almost word for word, from this web page from the NLM titled: Psychosomatic Medicine: "The Puzzling Leap". That website requests that "National Library of Medicine (NLM) be given appropriate acknowledgement" if the text is used elsewhere. — BillC talk 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Add: and some of the intro has come verbatim from this book review. — BillC talk 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Starting with this: "There is also a probable psychological influence in the development and outcome of conditions such as migraines." This is not only unproven but unaccepted by leading neurologists. While Wikipedia entries on physics and other hard sciences tend to be quite good, anything to do with psychiatry is a heap of conjecture and outright quackery. 68.58.2.232 ( talk) 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Power of suggestion currently redirects here to psychosomatic medicine. While there is a brief mentioning of using suggestion by an authority figure to help alleviate psychosomatic symptoms, it would seem much more appropriate to redirect that to the general Suggestion page. Mmortal03 ( talk) 04:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is listed here as a psychosomatic illness. There is a growing mountain of evidence that it is purely physiological in cause and cure. It is possible that stress may contribute but that can be said of many illnesses.
Indeed, the suggestion by psychiatrists for the last 20 years that M.E. is psychological, may turn out to be one of the greatest malpractices of modern medicine. Where is the critical concession that many psychosomatic illness have turned out to be physiological ?
To keep a consistent tone, I invite one of the regular authors of this topic to make the corrections suggested by at least removing Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from the list.
-- X86dude ( talk) 06:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of ME/CFS not being psychosomatic, check out this story --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7378440.stm
It is old news to anyone informed about ME/CFS, the gene expression findings have been around for a few years, they are just refining them until that magical diagnostic test appears and then ME/CFS will be viewed as legitimate as Multiple Sclerosis - rememeber the psychiatrists used to call MS "hysterical paralysis" before the MRI showed the lesions on the brain...
Also while I'm at it, the same can be said for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity --> http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/30187005cp.shtml
Hope someone corrects this article, I'm only new here so don't want to step on any toes.
Cheers Ash H —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash H ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Under the header Treatment, it reads: "Unlike hypochondria (which some mistakenly think is the same thing as psychosomatic illness), sufferers of a psychosomatic illness are experiencing real pain, real nausea, or other real physically felt symptoms, but with no cause that can be diagnosed."
According to the DSM-IV-TR, hypochondriasis is a somatoform disorder, which is itself a type of psychosomatic disorder. Therefore, hypochondriasis is a psychosomatic disorder. Since there's no source for the initial clause in the sentence quoted above, I'm removing it immediately. svadhisthana ( talk) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Those with hypochondriasis do, in fact, experience real symptoms. However, they tend to psychologically exaggerate those symptoms, leading to a fixation that convinces them that they have a severe physical condition.
I have tagged this article as NPOV since it contains several tendentious, unsourced statements that suggest a number of organic diseases to be psychosomatic. Do not remove the template until this is resolved. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 00:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Psychosomatic medicine is an interdisciplinary medical field studying psychosomatic illness, now more commonly referred to as psychophysiologic illness or disorder, whose symptoms are caused by mental processes of the sufferer rather than immediate physiological causes. These syndromes are classified as neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders by the World Health Organization in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.
My pov does not go into any Wikipedia article. If I have one, it goes into an essay. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I have removed migraine from the list since the reference provided by SW was about comorbidity, not cause. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Guido: how is personality "co-morbid"? The article concluded that personality and psychosomatic factors were important in the development of migraines.
Tekaphor: if you want to take a go at improving the article, feel free. Certainly there are psychosomatic factors for many illnesses, and for some illnesses it plays a larger part than others. The difference is that for CFS many researchers believe that it is purely psychosomatic, so it should be included here. If you can suggest a better reference, great. -- Sciencewatcher ( talk) 18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tekaphor, I guess we can reach consensus here now. My suggestion is to put in a general remark that psychological factors can influence risk and course of physical diseases, without mentioning any disorder in particular. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason to still have the pov tag? I noticed Guido has added a cite-check tag too. -- Sciencewatcher ( talk) 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There is adequate evidence, which I have given and which is in the CFS article - you just choose not to look at it. And if you have a look above you'll see the comment from the WHO that you posted saying that psychosomatic illnesses are classed as stress-related. It seems that further discussion is pointless. -- Sciencewatcher ( talk) 23:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to rewrite the disputed text to reflect all sides. CFS is still mentioned, but with a historical component rather than suggesting two equal camps in 2008. I hope this can satisfy everyone. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 07:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"Including, but not limited to" is lawyer-speak and is unnecessary since "including" implies additional items already. -- Unimath ( talk) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sciencewatcher,
I'm the editor who reverted some of your recent changes to the Psychosomatic medicine page. I think you have a point about my wording, which wasn't great. But I'm concerned that the way you have re-expressed things implies the evidence for a role for stress in peptic ulcer is strong. I do not think this is the case. The article you cite by Fink as support for this claim presents the following evidence:
- the lack of 100% correspondence between presence of H pylori and peptic ulcer. This doesn't demonstrate a role of mental stress specifically, and it has already been mentioned earlier in the WP page
- the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake was followed by a significant increase in the number of people with peptic ulceration (doesn't demonstrate a mental stress link, could be a hygiene issue, or any number of things).
- the high rate of stomach ulcers amongst the physically injured and those with severe burns (independent of H pylori). This is very different from the idea of "mental stress" that is being claimed by the author. Its a huge stretch! - references to other people's opinions, arguments, conclusions (Creed, Levenstein). Just citing someone who agrees with the author is obviously not evidence.
None of these claims provides supporting evidence for the statement that stress plays a role in peptic ulcer. To state such a thing in WP, we need supporting evidence. Otherwise it must remain a "position" or a "view" as I was trying to empahsise (but perhaps not very prettily).
More generally, we need to find a way of presenting the views of the psychosomatic medicine which is fair to their perspective, but does not simply present their hypotheses as uncontroversial fact (their perspective has come under a lot of criticism of late, and some appears to be well justified in my view).
Your thoughts welcome on how to resolve.
Wilshica
-- Wilshica ( talk) 07:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but then what you have in your supporting reference is essentially some person's opinion, this needs to made clear. I will have another go trying to avoid the weasel words, while still getting across the poor evidence and controversy regarding some of these claims.
-- Wilshica ( talk) 22:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/gasn.2015.13.2.16 -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 23:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any references for this issue, so I'm raising it on the talk page in the hope that some might be found.
The "it's all in your head" dismissal is very harmful because it is unfalsifiable. There are symptoms, the patient is told that they are lying, imagining it, or bringing it upon themselves with negative thoughts. There is no differential diagnosis, because the diagnosis of psychosomatic (or somatoform, or malingering...) is leapt to. Since the illness is not dealt with, the symptoms continue, which is taken as evidence that the patient has persisted in their pesky self-harm-via-thought.
I recall a time when I went to my GP with cramps. One would presume that he might start with the assumption that I had cramps, go through some sort of differential diagnosis to work out the cause and a sensible path forward. Instead, I made the mistake of suggesting what I thought the cause might be. His response was a cunty "I wonder whether you had them before you read about that." He wrote out my regular prescriptions, and the consultation ended. He didn't even check that I'd learnt that particular cause of low electrolytes before my cramps started or not. He just decided it was definitely psychosomatic, and abandoned me to my cramps --- which did actually continue until I removed that cause.
I'm pretty sure that's not a rare occurrence: the fact that a patient suggests a diagnosis is taken as evidence for an alternative diagnosis of "it's all in your head". This creates a perverse situation where an ignorant patient is treated properly, but a well-read patient is abandoned to their painful symptoms with no further investigation.
Hopefully someone has looked into this somewhere. Correctrix ( talk) 04:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
(Comment simultaneously posted on the three relevant talk pages.)
There appears to be a disconnect between the definition of "psychosomatic" in use for the Psychogenic disease, Psychosomatic medicine, and Somatic symptom disorder pages.
Psychogenic disease describes it as "illnesses with a known medical cause where psychological factors may nonetheless play a role (e.g., asthma can be exacerbated by anxiety)."
Somatic symptom disorder, which is the redirect for "psychosomatic," doesn't directly reference the word at all in the body of the article, but if we assume from the redirect that the two words are implied to be synonymous, it is "any mental disorder that manifests as physical symptoms that suggest illness or injury, but cannot be explained fully by a general medical condition or by the direct effect of a substance, and are not attributable to another mental disorder (e.g., panic disorder)." Already, these two conflict.
Psychosomatic medicine corroborates the definition used in Psychogenic illness, saying "in contemporary psychosomatic medicine, the term is normally restricted to those illnesses that do have a clear physical basis, but where it is believed that psychological and mental factors also play a role." But it further states that "psychiatry traditionally distinguishes between psychosomatic disorders, disorders in which mental factors play a significant role in the development, expression, or resolution of a physical illness, and somatoform disorders, disorders in which mental factors are the sole cause of a physical illness."
It also appears to use the terms "psychosomatic" and "psychogenic" interchangeably (or without a clarified distinction) without linking to Psychogenic disease.
As Somatic symptom disorder is the redirect for somatoform disorder, this now means Psychosomatic medicine claims two of its redirects are distinct concepts.
This appears to be a tangle in need of cleaning up and I do not know how to approach it. Aliengeometries ( talk) 05:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)