My question was actually an exercise of humanity.
How many of us have already seen a psychologist or psychiatrist? How many of us have already started any process of self understanding? Otherwise, how many of us are, at this moment, diagnosing and treating individuals without having started our own process of self understanding?
How can I help others individuals without knowing (proper) myself? By following books and professors??
I'd call it as "argumentum ad verecundiam".
Try taking a look at the way you understand the relation between patient + "mental" + illnesses, and observe how it biases your speech (and your practice).
"patients WHO ARE mentally ill"
"someone WHO IS bipolar rather than schizophrenic"
"utilize drugs to HELP ENSURE MENTAL STABILITY "
"who HAS schizo-affective disorder"
"Labelling a client or person BY THEIR DISORDER"
Firstly, in your speech, there's a belief that someone HAS a condition x, y or z. I say belief cause there ain't no proof that such conditions are real characteristics. Clients that are diagnosed, usually, just match some conditions. There ain no x-ray, laboratory exame that show any disease within "patient's self", in spite there are some research showing brain images.
But where (in the brain, mind, whatever) are the signature of the disorder???
Are the verbs (to have, to be) ok for representing suffering?? What about issues like brain plasticity and https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.helsinki.fi%2Fneurosci%2Fgroups%2Fcastren.html&h=IAQEJcrSK
Is a disorder something that we have? Any proof of that??? Aren't you confusing diagnosis for cancer (which is on body) and for mental illnesses (which is in the MIND)?
What is exactly what we call "mind"? An analogy for brain?? For self?? For what???
How can I diagnose and treat MINd issues without knowing what/ where it is? Do I believe in statistics?? Kappa stuff??? Placebo effect???
What about effect size in psychiatric research??
Are research in neuroscience and psychiatry same??
Second there's a belief that there's a proper medication for each of such "mental" conditions. Sorry man, there is not and also there are different dosages for different patients (with same conditions) and in different moments of therapy.
Also, patient's conditions aren't only "mental". They also involve social, familiar, cultural, transgerational (and on and on) issues.
It's a bit more complex process than just diagnosing and medicating a patient.
Is it possible to treat (heal) someone from society, from itself or from nurturing ??
Take a look at this following picture. It may help to reflect.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Andry_tree.png
Third, suddenly you said that the medication will HELP obtaining mental stability. Observe that you've changed the track in here, once your speech wasn't the same from bottom to top. You said at the beginning that the person HAS the condition, and then you said the medication will affect mental stability (patient's mental state).
What are (we) talking about?
Docility-utility??? Docile bodies???
Would such stability, caused by medication, be a guarantee that the patient's emotions won't be exacerbated? Is that what you mean by STABILITY?
What does statistics say about it?????? Do you have any argument?
If yes, who said it? And who said it is important to clients?
Are we just following the flow and playing with our clients, in the name of science ???
Would such mental stability (that according to you is caused by medication) be a condition for persons to think in a clearer manner about their conditions of life or personal issues? If yes, would this moment within therapy be the "cherry on top" (????)..
Oops... Are we changing the track in here again?
What a mishmash, man!!!!