Responses

other Versions

PDF
‘Organic’ and ‘non-organic’: a tale of two turnips
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    ‘Organic’ and ‘non-organic’

    Stone and Carson(1) say:
    ‘Non-organic refers to things unrelated to living matter,… This is a word that cannot be used to describe conditions suffered by living human beings.’ They refer ‘to the OED sense: “something characterised by structural or other pathological change in an organ or organs”. They acknowledge it was useful ‘in the 19th century when neurologists first saw the pathology of multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease. But what about genetic generalised epilepsy or migraine—pathological, but not necessarily structural, or at least no more so than, for example, unipolar depression where there is quite substantial evidence for structural changes. ’(2)

    They are right to point out the difficulties in separating ‘functional and non-organic’ disorders from those with structural or ultrastructural abnormalities but they should not be ‘blackballed from the club of legitimate conditions because of the difficulty in establishing their veracity.’

    Most of us understand that epilepsy, migraine and spasmodic torticollis, for example, have underlying structural or other subtle abnormalities; the fact that modern techniques don't always disclose the organic basis does not mean they are psychogenic, do not exist, or are illegitimate.

    Functional was originally the result of altered function (rather than structure) of an organ, system, etc.; but its meaning confusingly changed to a psychological cause as opposed to a physical one. The term...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.