Insofar as the 'psycho-' (i.e. brain) aspect of the problem, there may indeed be components of the etiology of certain reported 'diseases' - female or not - that will never be wedged into the dominant reductionist approach of current advanced medical diagnosis.
Neuroscience is in desperate need of a grand theory of brain function...and I see nothing approaching this on the horizon. I perceive the difficulty as a need for a quantum-theory-type foundation to support the very uncomputer-like network (neurons can work forward, backward, sideways, digitally, analogue-like, etc.) that defines the CNS. Just as quantum theory shattered many preconceptions of logic/time/bias, the 'whole' of the brain is very likely to be a vastly different animal than the summation, at any level, of its component parts. Einstein was never able to accept this non-deterministic view of the physical world 75 years ago and current neuroscience has yet to produce an individual whose prior research doesn't wholly skew their view of the gestalt.
This is a pathetically drawn out way of saying that on the one hand many of the problems of diagnosis you note ('female' in this case) may indeed be entirely 'psychological' in the sense that 'measurable sequelae' may not 'exist' by current standards. Perhaps in the future, I suspect centuries from now, 'measurable sequelae' may include 'paradigm shifts' (the vocabulary here is non-existent) of global (within an individual) CNS function, shifts that have been correlated to perceived physical/mental distress by solid science, and this diagnosis will lead to treatment based on the new underlying 'paradigm'.
In other words, in the distant future a diagnosis of 'psychological' will no longer be interpreted as a condescending dismissal but rather an empowering appreciation for a course of action.
And the word 'psychosomatic' will be largely remembered as a relic of the crude approach to these maladies in the 21st century. |
