New research suggests that blood tests could be used in the diagnoses and assessment of several mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder. This discovery has long been awaited in the field of psychiatry, as it can accurately detect mental illness. This would be much more useful than current methods of diagnoses for bipolar disorder and other conditions like depression, as all are currently diagnosed solely on the patient’s description of their symptoms and the doctors’ personal judgment. This current diagnoses process is also far less effective in determining the severity of a condition.
I think that it is great that this new objective data can lead to more accurate diagnoses in mental disorders. Not only will this help with the detection of certain mental disorders and the severity, but it could also help with some who have been misdiagnosed. Some doctors worry that a patient’s mental state is too private of a matter to be assessed with a blood test. My question is, then, how is this test any different for other tests performed in a doctor’s office, like for diabetes of hypoglycemia? I don’t know how it would invade the privacy of a patient, as I would assume that the patient would not only concent to the test, but would probably initiate the process. Either way, if the patient has serious mental disorders that go untreated, they could become a danger to themselves and others. Assuming the test is simple enough, I think that it would be a great idea to perform the test with a regular check up.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The question that comes to mind first is if the medicate first school of Psycology is correct in the most popular method of treating emotional problems why do these tests not already exist? Surely if injecting or ingesting a chemical can fix the problem then that problem could be detected by a chemicaly based test.
While I would not dismiss the value of drugs, or studying the effects of brain chemistry it seems obvious that the entire situation is more complex. People are emotionaly changed by experiences. Sometimes there is a biological predisposition, but not always.
The human mind can be more effectively trained than drugged. Unfortunatly we know too little about exactly how either works.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
I am not a clinical psychologist, but they discuss some of the ways that it is detected in the origional article I read:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337532/?GT1=10856
I think that even if someone developed a mental disease, it would change the natural chemical balance of their body, and thus be detected.
Also, I shoul make sure that it is clear that this is not for ALL disorders, only certain mental disorders. Bipolar disorder was what was most heavily highlighted in the article.
I'm not trying to say there is no validity to psycopharmacology. The dificulty in determining the origin of some of these disorders, and the absurdity of just drugging peoples problems away were more my intended thrust.
I think a genetic test might be a necesary component to any blood test for insanity. Someone slapping you in the face obviously changes your emotions, probably creates a change in blood chemistry, but is a fairly temporary thing. If it happens daily to a developing child it might cause permanent harm, but is administering a drug the way to solve the problem long term?
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
Ooh. That last bit is a good point. I hadn't thought about that.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I'm not sure that's the best way to go about routinely checking for mental illness. While that can in fact detect some of the later stages of neurological disorders such a bipolar, many times physical symptoms do not come into play until severe help is needed. Also, things like post-traumatic stress won't be able to be detected with this test. I think it's a start, but that mental health services in the form of psychological analysis should also become routine.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/hugogirl46
I also think that routine psychological analyis would be a great routine procedure, and of course this test doesn't have all the answers, but I think it's a great advancement in medicine and could prove to be very useful.
I think the test could be fantastic, simply because I've seen what people go through in trying to find the right medication/med levels. There are dangerous implications, though. The next step will likely be some sort of prenatal test, which will lead to more debates about whether it is ethical to abort an "imperfect" child, etc. People are also getting more and more wary of blood data, as it can be used against you for insurance purposes, leaving many people without adequate health care. People with a history of mental illness already have enough trouble getting insurance.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I don't know if this test could be motivation to abort an "imperfect" child, because it seems like it's more of a goal to help peolpe. However, I think your concern about insurance is vary viable and the first rational thing that I've heard or thought of that could be motivation against common usage of this test.
If a blood test did exist that could distinguish mental disorders it would really help cut back on the number of unnecessary medications prescribed in the world. What I am wondering, though, is what if a person exhibits symptoms of a severe chemical imbalance, but the blood test does not reflect it? Would new disorders be created so everyone would fit in a box, so their behavior symptoms could be explained? What about those who are managing their mental illness without medication, will doctors try to shove the meds down their throat simply because of blood test results even if there are no outward signs?