Hi Dreambirdie:

Quote Originally Posted by Dreambirdie View Post
As a psychotherapist with 25 years of experience and a sub-specialty of working with people with physical illness, I have encountered countless somatic complaints with psychological roots. I have also encountered numerous cases of physical conditions which were undiagnosed, incorrectly diagnosed, and/or for which no clear understanding had yet emerged. I am concerned that the proposal to create a classification, CSSD, has the potential to narrow rather than broaden our view of a patient's presentation of symptoms, and stigmatize people who are suffering from conditions for which there is as yet little medical understanding. Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are two prime examples.

More than twenty years ago, I treated a young woman who presented with numerous complaints of pain. Unable to obtain a medical diagnosis, I proceeded on the assumption that she had a somatoform disorder. The treatment did not help her. In fact, I believe that it drove her into a deeper depression. Years later, when fibromyalgia was finally recognized, she was able to obtain relief from treatment that recognized that she was dealing with a real condition, not an imagined one.

Lastly, should you make the mistake of proceeding with this classification, the elements of Criterion B are, individually and collectively, overly broad, vague, and insufficient. A person who presents with 6 months of chronic (C) pain (A), and who experiences anxiety (B, 1) and for whom that pain has assumed a central role in their lives (B, 5) is not expressing a mental disorder. S/he is dealing with a mysterious and poorly understood process. It may relieve the anxiety of the profession to be able to classify such a person's presentation, but it does nothing to relieve her/his suffering, which is our primary goal.

Excellent - and I did not know you are a real Jungian (it would seem to me now...on this plane of being my me, that is), and yes: I realize you've got to sing with the band but - even so - as to:

I have encountered countless somatic complaints with psychological roots.

I'd say: psychological roots are (in biomedical and physical fact) rooted in - experienced manifestations of - somatic roots (so to speak).

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

And then one has, by a process of mere (male? ) analytical logic:

"encountered countless somatic complaints with somatic roots (personal experiences)"

and then we agree wholly, while also applying frater Ockham's Razor...

Chapeau, partial colleague of this psychologician: A sane Jungian! There be real miracles next, methinks, as if that were possible !

Maarten.

Ockham's Razor
The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity")[2]. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[3]

(Quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)