I've been thinking about this, and here are my current thoughts, this may clear up our current discussion, I don't know. So, if something has a pathophysiological etiology, or if they have a tumor, or whatever causing phsycholgical symptoms, they whould primarily be treated by a medical specialist in the area. I think everyone agrees with me on this point. Right? Maybe there would be some counseling if there was some distress and the patient was interested or requested it. Ok with me there?
But in the event that something appeared to be primarily psychological in nature or etiology, it would most likely best be treated by a psychologist/psychiatrist right?
Ok, so I assume you agree with me up until now. Now there are many d/o which have been shown to be alleviated by both psychological and medical (meaning ECT or psychopharm) intervention. And, as all of us enlightened ones know, there is no dualism. So ultimately most things can be found to be affected by medical intervention or at least to some extent. But why would we want as psychologists to reduce everything to the biological? Why would it be the best type of intervention be the pharmacological?