psycho troubles

#1
(I have made another post about this, but that's only on the off-chance somebody can answer both of my questions)

I have previously had an episode of psychosis, at least according to my doctor, however it only lasted two weeks (presenting symptoms for one week) and was undoubtedly caused by massive sleep deprivation.

I am intending to sign up to the paras, and it has been over a year since this happened and I have had no symptoms in that time.

Can anyone tell me whether this will affect my application?
 
#2
jarrod248 said:
Sounds like your Doctor is an idiot - a two week psychosis? See the GP and ask what it's recorded as on your records.
I know what it is recorded as. It's recorded as an "acute psychosis", which means that I (allegedly) experience psychosis very briefly. My doctor isn't an idiot and that is a very real diagnosis (and very common too). Long-term psychosis is called chronic psychosis, it IS possible to experience psychosis for an incredibly short period of time, as strange as that sounds, although I contend that I was merely sleep deprived.
 
#3
jarrod248 said:
The_Copperhead said:
A psychosis can have an acute stage but the only short term psychoses I've seen were drug induced - Amfetamine to be precise.
I don't understand why you're judging based on what you've seen. Unless you're a doctor it's highly understandable that you haven't seen or even heard of the vast majority of diagnoses. Acute Psychosis is a common psychiatric diagnosis, and if you want more information I recommend looking into the NHS's Early Intervention Service, which was established to deal with people who have had an episode of acute psychosis.

However this exchange has brought up one point; the army is probably thinking chronic psychosis, which I CERTAINLY do not have.
 
#4
jarrod248 said:
The_Copperhead said:
No i'm a psychiatric Nurse and have been for 20 years. A psychosis is a severe mental illness not a two week hobby. I won't bother looking at what you've posted as I reckon i know enough about psychosis already.
I think that's a relatively immature attitude to take towards increasing your knowledge. You can happily declare that it doesn't exist, despite being offered proof it does. What is evident from this exchange is that it's possible to be a psychiatric nurse for two decades and not see all possible diagnoses.

It's also apparent that you've become confused by the term, which is understandable as the term is confusing. A diagnosis of acute psychosis implies just that; for some reason or another the person presented with psychotic symptoms for a short period of time without any prior history. As you probably DO know there are a number of conditions and medications which can cause a person to present psychotic symptoms, like bipolar disorder, sleep deprivation, a bad reaction to medication, hypocalcemia, hypokalemia (all electrolyte disorders in fact) and even flu. Acute psychosis is common as a SYMPTOM of these disorders. There is another condition, chronic psychosis (or simply 'psychosis') which, sadly, has the exact same but doesn't have the same pathology, and only share a name out of convenience. Psychosis is an illness in and of itself.

Quite simply; it's common medical knowledge that psychotic symptoms can present suddenly, in response to something immediate, and as a symptom of almost any condition. There are very few psychiatric conditions where psychosis ISN'T a possible symptom, not to mention countless general medical conditions (it could have been something as simple as suspected hypertensive encephalopathy which have subsided before they could verify it).

In short; it's completely understandable that even medical staff won't be aware of all possible diagnoses, even within their own field. That doesn't really justify a childish rant which makes somebody who has nothing to do with medicine look infinitely more informed than you.
 
#5
The_Copperhead said:
jarrod248 said:
The_Copperhead said:
No i'm a psychiatric Nurse and have been for 20 years. A psychosis is a severe mental illness not a two week hobby. I won't bother looking at what you've posted as I reckon i know enough about psychosis already.
I think that's a relatively immature attitude to take towards increasing your knowledge. You can happily declare that it doesn't exist, despite being offered proof it does. What is evident from this exchange is that it's possible to be a psychiatric nurse for two decades and not see all possible diagnoses.

It's also apparent that you've become confused by the term, which is understandable as the term is confusing. A diagnosis of acute psychosis implies just that; for some reason or another the person presented with psychotic symptoms for a short period of time without any prior history. As you probably DO know there are a number of conditions and medications which can cause a person to present psychotic symptoms, like bipolar disorder, sleep deprivation, a bad reaction to medication, hypocalcemia, hypokalemia (all electrolyte disorders in fact) and even flu. Acute psychosis is common as a SYMPTOM of these disorders. There is another condition, chronic psychosis (or simply 'psychosis') which, sadly, has the exact same but doesn't have the same pathology, and only share a name out of convenience. Psychosis is an illness in and of itself.

Quite simply; it's common medical knowledge that psychotic symptoms can present suddenly, in response to something immediate, and as a symptom of almost any condition. There are very few psychiatric conditions where psychosis ISN'T a possible symptom, not to mention countless general medical conditions (it could have been something as simple as suspected hypertensive encephalopathy which have subsided before they could verify it).

In short; it's completely understandable that even medical staff won't be aware of all possible diagnoses, even within their own field. That doesn't really justify a childish rant which makes somebody who has nothing to do with medicine look infinitely more informed than you.
i'm looking forward to hearing from this guy when (more if) he gets to depot.

NCO: "do it this way, cuz im right and you're wrong"
The_Copperhead: "actually mister, you're wrong, i haven't passed basic yet, but i know infinately more than you"

beasting follows
 
#6
neilf49 said:
i'm looking forward to hearing from this guy when (more if) he gets to depot.

NCO: "do it this way, cuz im right and you're wrong"
The_Copperhead: "actually mister, you're wrong, i haven't passed basic yet, but i know infinately more than you"

beasting follows
So you looked at somebody who decided they don't need to read evidence because they already 'know enough', and somebody presenting them the evidence, and concluded that the person presenting the evidence was the arrogant one?

I think that represents a dramatic lack of observational ability, and comparing a combat-hardened NCO to a nurse who won't read up on medicine does the NCO a significant injustice.
 
#7
The_Copperhead said:
neilf49 said:
i'm looking forward to hearing from this guy when (more if) he gets to depot.

NCO: "do it this way, cuz im right and you're wrong"
The_Copperhead: "actually mister, you're wrong, i haven't passed basic yet, but i know infinately more than you"

beasting follows
So you looked at somebody who decided they don't need to read evidence because they 'already know enough', and somebody presenting them the evidence, and concluded that the person presenting the evidence was the arrogant one?

I think that represents a dramatic lack of observational ability, and comparing a combat-hardened NCO to a nurse who won't read up on medicine does the NCO a significant injustice.
not at all... i'm saying that the difference between you and jared248 is you are no-one, and they are a psychiatric nurse who has done the job for 20 years, i'd rather listen to their opinion than wikipedia's thanks.
just cuz you cream on wikipedia every night doesn't make you stephen fry :wink:
 
#10
jarrod248 said:
I didn't say I know enough, as we all continue to learn. I did not want to look at what you posted as it's not relevent to your question which I answered. You don't seem to like the answer - sorry about that.
"A psychosis is a severe mental illness not a two week hobby. I won't bother looking at what you've posted as I reckon i know enough about psychosis already."

That's weird; I do see the words "I reckon I know enough" in there.

In any case, you didn't actually answer my point; you informed me that my diagnosis did not exist. Call me a rationalist, but it feels like the one piece of information you do need to know, the single fact that you need to hold in your brain in order to provide any insight is whether or not this condition exists, seeing as you're of the opinion that it doesn't. I provided such evidence, and yet by your own admission you 'reckon you know about enough psychosis already' and as a result won't read it, also by your own admission.

I am honestly at a loss (and I hope I don't sound angry because I am not, I think if this conversation had taken place in real life it would have had a different and more nicer tone). This disorder is DSM-IV 298.8, and I honestly do not know why you've chosen to decide that this particular page of the DSM-IV is blank.

Still, if you change your mind on whether it exists or anyone has the answer, please tell me.
 
#11
Perhaps he's searching for the dummy he violently spit out. Who knows.

edit* Aww see now he went and beat me to it, disregarding my comment completely. Shame on you sir.
 
#12
he bites like a female pike in spring, its mega,

and as for this taking place at quieter tones if it were in real life... i don't think we're down the gentlemans club (put your pinky away) exchanging opinions over a remy martin and cigar, actually i think alcoholism can cause psychosis so you'd better just have an oj
 
#13
jarrod248 said:
Psychotics don't tend to have much insight.
Might want to get yourself checked out then. If you are still under the impression that if you get your DSM-IV, flick to section 298.8 and find a blank page where the condition I described should be, then you're more insane than most of the psychotics they have banged up.

I asked a legitimate question, you told me that the diagnosis doesn't even exist. Now I expected that when I directed you the proof that it did you'd read it, think about it and give your opinion on whether or not this condition DID violate the army's medical standards.

Instead I get a truly bizarre pseudo-religious denial of a medical condition that quite literally could be looked up by yourself right now in any of the diagnostic manuals you undoubtedly own (use google if looking it up in a book is too much effort. It'll give you just as much information in a fraction of the time).

Personally I think my wording sounded harsher than I intended, and rather than do what I assume you'd normally do (say "oh, that's interesting" after briefly checking to verify that the condition does exist. You may even have found you knew it by another name) you instead said something in error and stuck by it for fear of losing face.

I'm sorry if I did word my post too harshly.
 
#15
The_Copperhead said:
jarrod248 said:
Psychotics don't tend to have much insight.
wibble wibble.
stop getting all upset in here and direct your attention to the thread "JSP 346" where you will be able to read one of the documents used to decide medical grading.

Please note that due to the new tri service medical grading system this may change in the near future.
 
#16
theoriginalphantom said:
stop getting all upset in here and direct your attention to the thread "JSP 346" where you will be able to read one of the documents used to decide medical grading.

Please note that due to the new tri service medical grading system this may change in the near future.
This was incredibly useful, thank you.

For those in this discussion who didn't know; acute psychotic disorder (F-29) does NOT exclude you from service.

And being an overly aggressive trouble causer doesn't either, luckily for me. Sorry Jarrod.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top