 |
 |
Jerry A. Finch wrote the following excerpts in his message: I recently saw a posting here that made a reference to the cause of PD being related to co-dependency and the inability to express feelings. While I am extremely open to the freedom we all need to express our ideas, I must take exception to this one. Not that I want to get on the ground floor of an arguement about brain chemistry and emotions, but science has pretty well proven that depression is a result of PD, not the cause. Nor have I seen any scientific evidence of someone being cured of PD by breaking co-dependent personality patterns. If there is such verifiable evidence, I know we all would be extremely interested. It is inherent for us who are members of the PD community to offer each other all the help and love we can gather. That requires speaking as honestly as we can when we share ideas, and to base our promotions on proven methods. Freedom of speech may allow me to say that BBQ cures PD, but a moral obligation prevents me from promoting it as a fact. While a plunge into psychotherapy might be the best method of dealing with PD for some, it isn't a proven cure, at least not yet. *end quotes* Perhaps this discussion should continue in that there may be aspects of personality (for lack of a precise jargon) preceding diagnosis that correlate (therefore might be causal) to degeneration rate of neurons; the mental handling of the PD diagnosis per se may affect the amount of degeneration during the early period which is definitely depressing (id est, a psychological loss of significant import - it is proof that one is not whole - it is uncurable - it is complex to predict what will happen or how soon so one is left in limbo, etc.). I was diagnosed as a part of a full physical testing and state of health at Sansum Clinic in Santa Barbara, CA. The many tests and multiple physicians found no disease or physical/biological evidence of abnormality, so the usual diagnosis mode of these symptoms with shown abscence of tumor mean I have PD. The mention of positive response to levodopa was the final step in the diagnosis was probably stated. I pursued my usual learning all I can and was given a prescription which allowed me to purchase Dr Duvoison's book on PD for the price of $5 at the clinic's research library. I related all that to be background to my not being advised to consider or seek any psychological counseling in regard to the normal phases of dealing with significant personal loss. These being: shock of loss itself, anger (why me), despair, depression, and eventual acceptance. Perhaps each of the physicians knew these phases were starting for me. Perhaps one or all of them cognitively considered the process aand made judgement cognitively - consciously - that I was likely to be able to handle it without professional help; but, nothing was verbalized. Perhaps I would have benefitted from a discussion of what to expect - as outlined above. Providing a pampflet with discussion of the normal phases of handling significant bad news would have been good. Perhaps they did not consider this part of their responsibility. Perhaps none of this came to their cognizance. Perhaps they followed the apparent procedure of having their staff administer an IQ type test, found me more competent than most and left it at that - I never received a proper feedback of the test result. But I can be cynical and that makes me postulate that there may not have been a part of their organization competent and competetive in cost providing such counseling, so it was not considered. I propose the group debate the QUESTION: Should the psychology of handling significant loss be expicitly considered at diagnosis? Sub-questions might be how? by whom? should support groups pay more attention to it? et cetera ...my best wishes to all, ron Ron,59,dz PD 11 <[log in to unmask]> Ronald Vetter http://www1.ridgecrest.ca.us/~rfvetter/