FERREIRA A J
Calif Med. 1961 Jun;94(6):369-77.
The causes and the nature of the psychiatric disorder labeled schizophrenia remain vexingly obscure. Perhaps as an expression of a still extant body-mind controversy, most of the experiments and statements made toward an elucidation of the problem follow one or the other of two opposing postulations: (a) That its origin is genetico-organic; (b) that it is environmental. In a review of the outstanding "facts" for either argument, it is notable that they presuppose not only a difference in theoretical frameworks, but two radically distinct outlooks. This is reflected in therapy, a field in which organicists and environmentalists stand even further apart; the organicist, relying heavily on electroshock and drugs, hopes to counteract a hypothetical body malfunction, and the environmentalist, through psychotherapy, attempts to make it possible for the patient to disentangle his own conflicting feelings and reaction patterns. Between the two an eclectic position seems hardly tenable. For, in spite of voluminous research and speculation, it has not been possible to build a bridge between the two camps and integrate different outlooks which, at times, have brought psychiatry almost to the point of schism.
被称作精神分裂症的精神疾病的病因和本质仍然极其模糊。或许作为身心争议依然存在的一种表现,为阐明该问题所做的大多数实验和陈述都遵循两种对立假设中的一种:(a)其起源是基因-器质性的;(b)其起源是环境性的。在审视支持这两种观点的显著“事实”时,值得注意的是,它们不仅预设了理论框架的差异,还预设了两种截然不同的观点。这在治疗领域也有所体现,在该领域,器质性论者和环境论者的分歧更大;器质性论者严重依赖电击疗法和药物,希望纠正一种假定的身体机能障碍,而环境论者则通过心理治疗,试图让患者理清自己相互冲突的情感和反应模式。在两者之间采取折衷立场似乎很难站得住脚。因为,尽管有大量研究和推测,但尚未能在两个阵营之间架起一座桥梁,整合不同的观点,而这些观点有时几乎使精神病学陷入分裂。