Interesting survey reported in the BMJ

[210272]

jnnp.bmj.com/content/83/3/248

[Dave_1]

This is interesting but sad, I had thought the term Conversion Disorder had been removed to the skip/dump in relation to FND.

It also implys that it is easier to use the Term Functional because the neurologists feel it is too complicated for a patient to understand the condition. Personally I believe that it is the Neurologists who are not up to speed with the advances in research into FND. Neurologists need retrained SOON in this area.

[210272 in reply to Dave_1]

The inclusion criteria for a 'conversion disorder' dx seem to have changed. Apparently we no longer need to have had a 'life event' to qualify. Meanwhile I'd be more impressed if neurologists got up to speed with all this: checkrare.com/there-are-ove...

[210272 in reply to 210272]

When I read Stone's bare essentials paper I noticed that he said that the term 'functional' is 'easy' to use with patients. Dumbing down? Gaslighting?

[Dave_1 in reply to 210272]

Yes it is very frustrating that clinicians think we are of low intellect and not capable of understanding a concept. He has done some great work though and without the like of him, AND OTHERS, we may still be reduced to psychiatric appointments and tranquilisers.

If any specialists are reading these blogs maybe they will take note!!!!!!

[210272 in reply to Dave_1]

Wait, what? If the 'he' you are referring to is Jon Stone, he wrote that 'functional' is 'easy' to use with patients. And he also suggests referrals to psychiatrists. Is the 'FND' dx a job creation scheme for psychiatrists and would they be better placed looking after people with conditions like 22q deletion, for example?

[Shilly2]

This article is dated 2011/2012, things have moved on since then.

[210272 in reply to Shilly2]

Do you have a link to something more up to date?

[Shilly2 in reply to 210272]

Just google FND and research you'll find plenty. Look at Mark Edwards and Jon Stone.

[Shilly2 in reply to 210272]

Try this one - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...

[210272 in reply to Shilly2]

Thanks. I was misdiagnosed with 'functional' symptoms so have read most of the content from Stone et al but hadn't seen this paper. Do they retranslate Stone's site every time a new nuance emerges? I found this interesting too : Functional Neurological Disorders: Mayo Clinic ... - YouTube

[Shilly2 in reply to 210272]

Yes, this was interesting but still weighs heavily on the psychological side of things, whilst admitting that this doesn't necessarily fit everyone. It is time that they embrace this and provide a diagnosis term to separate those that can be determined to have a psychological basis and those that do not fit this category. Then maybe they can look towards identifying other possible causes and treatments without this clouding the issues. Too many people, including doctors, see psychology as the only answer because they are unable to 'see' anything else and can't simply admit that we just don't know.

[210272 in reply to Shilly2]

My doctor doesn't do that psychogenic separation stuff and neither does my neurologist or anyone else I know.