[rmc]

Another reason to put the sticker on there is to spread awareness and end the stigma. Some people think that mental illness isn't a real illness. But if you have something wrong with your lungs, you go to a lung doctor; so if you have something wrong with your head/mind, you should go to a mind doctor.

[yummyfajitas]

Lung cancer and most other physical ailments have legitimate, objective diagnostic criteria. You get a test or two and find out if you have a specific disease. I.e., science.

Psychiatry, except in rare cases, does nothing of the sort. Most discussion about mental illness (including your post) is an attempt to induce people to apply fallacious reasoning about it - you've developed intuitions about cancer, now go incorrectly apply that intuition to depression/drug addiction/etc.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que...

If you wish to argue that a given animal can fly, "penguins fly just like crows fly, they are both birds" is a fallacious argument. Similarly, "do X for mind disease just like you'd do X for lung disease" is a fallacious argument.

[rmc]

Does love exist? If so, what is the simple, legitimate, objective diagnosis test for it?

[lutusp]

> if you have something wrong with your lungs, you go to a lung doctor; so if you have something wrong with your head/mind, you should go to a mind doctor.

Yes -- except there is no such thing as a "mind doctor", at least in a scientific sense. Psychiatrists and psychologists cannot treat depression, and increasing amounts of neuroscientific evidence demonstrate that depression is not a mental illness, it's a physical one.

A recent study of deep brain stimulation (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/magazine/02depression.html...) is showing very promising preliminary results, results in which a patient's depression lifts instantly when the stimulating signal is applied, and resumes when the signal is removed. Apart from being a promising indication for future research, this study shows that depression is not a mental illness, the domain of psychiatry and psychology, it's a physical illness, the domain of neuroscience.

[dfraser992]

No, all it shows is that there is a physical component - and probably for only some people. It is hardly the same as something like diabetes. On that note, I am now going to a therapy group for people with diabetes, because the NHS has realized the psychological aspects of dealing with diabetes are important enough that giving people support (in that manner) are cost effective over the person's lifetime - i.e. they learn how to deal with the psychological stress of it and so the long term consequences are lessened at a lower cost for the health care system. Thank god I do NOT live in the US anymore!

[lutusp]

> No, all it shows is that there is a physical component - and probably for only some people.

In science, the word "probably" is best left behind.

> It is hardly the same as something like diabetes.

But that's just the point -- until we know what causes depression, as scientists we should not arbitrarily assume anything. The recent findings point to a physical, biological cause. The fact that psychiatrists and psychologists cannot treat depression points in the same direction. Or didn't you know that? Studies of psychological depression treatments and drugs have yet to reach statistical significance.

[rmc]

There are a lot of people who have been helped by "mind doctors".

[lutusp]

Yes, and there are a lot of people who have been helped by astrologers. But I don't think this is a point anyone would want to make in a discussion of science, where explanations trump descriptions.