> I am a new member of the group and I have gone over many parts of the

> contentions since the beginning in 2004 and I am particularly interested by
the
> issue of disease in Szasz work.
>
> To venture to define disease I start with the Szasz's definition of it which
is
> matching the one of the pathologist: "structural or functional abnormality of
> cells, tissues, organs, or bodies." Insanity , The idea...1987, p 12. that we
> can identify by the finding of a lesion.
>
> Szasz accepts this definition only for bodily diseases. According to him, it
> doesn't apply to the so called "mental illness" because it is impossible to
find
> a lesion in the Mind. Then, bodily disease is a real disease whereas mental
> illness has the name of illness only metaphorically. (Actually, according to
> him, mental illness is a construction to justify involuntary treatments)
>
> In the definition of Szasz-pathologist, I first point out the word function.
>
> When the liver doesn't function properly it is ill. When the hear doesn't
> function properly it is ill, same thing for the eye, etc.
>
> Then, instead of starting with an abnormal structure, in which we find a
lesion,
> I begin with an abnormal function in order to go to the abnormal structure.
> Therefore, function prevails onto structure and the criteria for illness, is a
> malfunctioning of an organ, whether or not we find a lesion ( decades ago, we
> knew that an organ wasn't working properly without finding a lesion but,
now,the
> lesion is found i.e. Szasz example, syphilis.
>
> Therefore, concerning schizophrenia and manic-depression, for instance, first
of
> all, at some point, it is obvious that there is a malfunction, i.e. delusions,
> allucinations, etc. (though it is often a matter of degree, from potential to
> mild,to severe)Those two "diagnosis" are real diseases and not by nature bad
or
> disapproved behavior as Szasz says.

If you have mumps or Alzheimer's Disease or any other illness there is an
objective change in your body that may be used to identify the disease.

Saying weird things like: "There's a dragon in my pea soup,", or "I'm Winston
Churchill" is not necessarily caused by a disease. A person might ay these
things to get attention or because due to some life problem he finds it helpful
to think that the CIA is controlling him through his fillings. Now which is more
likely, that a random brain injury somehow contains knowledge about the CIA and
fillings or that the person just has weird ideas because his teeth hurt or he
likes to imagine his life is more exciting or whatever? And in the absence of
any evidence other than strange ideas why conclude that a person has a disease
rather than saying his beliefs are an attempt to solve some problem in his life?

> Actually, Szasz states that mental illness is a metaphor covering bad or
> disapproved behaviors, on the contrary, I state that bad or disapproved
> behaviors are metaphorical terms for madness which is a real disease.

So you're saying that all bad behaviour is caused by disease? So when the Nazis
exterminated the Jews they all simultaneously caught a disease and their
behaviour had nothing to do with the conspiracy theories they promoted about
Jews?

Alan