Took a well-deserved break from studying by watching a movie with some old friends. I don't want to spoil the plot of the movie, but essentially a soldier (who was thought to be dead) unexpectedly returns from his service in Afghanistan suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While a captive in Afghanistan, he was forced to kill his comrade or risk being killed himself.
When the solider returned to his family, he had difficulty trusting his loved ones. He presented with unusual behaviours, such as compulsively organizing dishes in the kitchen according to shape, size, and height. His affect changed from before - it became incongruent. Finally, he lost his ability to show emotion.
It's hard to say whether the movie made me more or less interested in psychiatry. I've always found psychiatry fascinating for the reason that patients often present with complex and multi-layered problems. Piecing together a patient's situation is no easy task, but the exercise itself allows room for interpretation and analysis. Psychiatry may not be one of the more evidence-based branches of medicine, but it does finely capture the art of it. However, treatment is usually long and arduous (even if you suggest pill-popping), some patients may deny having any mental health disorders, and improvements are hard to measure. With limited techniques and strategies, how do you know you are helping your patients?
WC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the main frustration with psychiatry is that you are treating the symptom rather than the cause of the problem most of the time. Giving anti-depressants to a depressed patient will surely lighten up his/her mood but the real question is what got him/her depressed in the first place? That being said though, I think a lot of psych treatment aims at preventing imminent hard that a person may do to himself/others from his condition and this, I think is certainly very valuable.
ReplyDeletebtw, that movie sounds good! what is the name?