Nothing to see here. Move along. (tainted_joy) wrote in ed_ucate,
Nothing to see here. Move along.
tainted_joy
ed_ucate

The morals of diagnosis

Do you think current diagnosis critera for eating disorders actually helps to encourage illnesses? It occurred to me recently that certain very specific criteria don't reflect a sufferer's early stages of an eating disorder and may encourage them to start fulfilling these criteria in order to be properly diagnosed with a "real" ED. For example, I checked the Anorexia criteria in the Memories, and one requirement was that a female sufferer had to have missed 3 consecutive periods. What, because the starvation and malnutrition and general suffering that comes before then isn't worthy of attention or diagnosis? I realise that if the criteria were too relaxed, it would open the doors for countless wanas to jump around screaming "OMG LOOK I'M STARVIN MYSELF SO I MUST BE ANA!!ONEONE", but at the same time, some of the specifics of BMI and physical effects in diagnostic criteria don't seem to reflect the pain and suffering that someone goes through before they reach that stage. Also, having such specific criteria is surely bait for the obsessive ED sufferer - "look, the rules say I have to miss three periods and have such-and-such BMI, therefore I'm going to starve myself harder and get sucked even further into this disease in order to achieve the status of a TRUE sufferer".

Opinions? Thoughts? Care to rip me a new one? Hehe.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 14 comments