Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
It's All in Your Head: Stories from the Frontline of Psychosomatic Illness Paperback – 14 April 2016
| Suzanne O'Sullivan (Author) See search results for this author |
| Amazon Price | New from | Used from |
|
Kindle Edition
"Please retry" | — | — |
|
Audible Audiobooks, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
£0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Audio CD, Audiobook, CD, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
—
| — | — |
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
- Choose from over 20,000 locations across the UK
- FREE unlimited deliveries at no additional cost for all customers
- Find your preferred location and add it to your address book
- Dispatch to this address when you check out
Enhance your purchase
A neurologist explores the very real world of psychosomatic illness.
Pauline first became ill when she was fifteen. What seemed to be a urinary infection became joint pain, then life-threatening appendicitis. After a routine operation Pauline lost all the strength in her legs. Shortly afterwards, convulsions started. But Pauline’s tests are normal: her symptoms seem to have no physical cause whatsoever.
This may be an extreme case, but Pauline is not alone. As many as a third of people visiting their GP have symptoms that are medically unexplained. In most, an emotional root is suspected which is often the last thing a patient wants to hear and a doctor to say.
We accept our hearts can flutter with excitement and our brows can sweat with nerves, but on this journey into the very real world of psychosomatic illness, Suzanne O'Sullivan finds the secrets we are all capable of keeping from ourselves.
‘A fascinating glimpse into the human condition... a forceful call for society to be more open about such suffering’ Daily Mail
‘Honest, fascinating and necessary’ The Times
- Print length336 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherVintage
- Publication date14 April 2016
- Dimensions13.21 x 2.29 x 19.81 cm
- ISBN-100099597853
- ISBN-13978-0099597858
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Product description
Review
A fascinating glimpse into the human condition... a forceful call for society to be more open about such suffering -- Ian Birrell ― Daily Mail
An important study of psychosomatic illness, which shows it to be a serious disease of modern society: misunderstood, misdiagnosed and surrounded by fear -- Louise Carpenter ― Telegraph
Remarkable Book… Offer[s] a remarkable insight into the suffering of these patients, as well as the power of the mind over the body… It should be on the reading list of every medical student. -- PD Smith ― Guardian
A book to start a revolution in healthcare, to make use see what no one has seen so clearly before -- Helen Rumbelow ― Times
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Vintage (14 April 2016)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 336 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0099597853
- ISBN-13 : 978-0099597858
- Dimensions : 13.21 x 2.29 x 19.81 cm
- Best Sellers Rank: 14,921 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- 31 in Health Psychology
- 56 in Depression & Mental Health Biographies
- 104 in Family & Lifestyle Depression
- Customer reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings, help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from United Kingdom
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Am I imagining that the original subtitle was 'True Stories of Imaginary Illness'? The copy I've just received appears to have replaced that with 'Stories from the Frontline of Psychosomatic Illness'.
This book, which consists of a set of case studies by a highly qualified neurologist setting out medical judgements about the status of her patients (that their illnesses are psychosomatic) has won a prize in a competition which specifies that the books entered must not be medical research. This seems to justify, or even require, the absence of references to the sources of her information.
Each chapter includes a section setting out the history of medical thinking about symptoms and illnesses which, depending on the state of medical information for the period, were 'medically unexplained'. (MUS, medically unexplained symptoms, has now become a psychiatric condition in its own right.). From Galen, through Beard, Janet, Charcot, Freud and more recent sociological theorists, we are led to, and encouraged to agree with the contemporary psychosocial thinking which has had such a negative impact particularly on attitudes and policies towards the disabled, especially those disabled by ME/CFS. Mo Stewart, in the article 'The Takeover By the US Private Medical Insurance Industry of the UK Welfare State', published by the Black Triangle Campaign for the rights of people who are disabled details this effect. Several of the psychiatrists who promote the psychiatric model have, or have had financial connections with medical insurers, and with the DWP.
A theme which runs through the book is how unwilling her patients are to accept any suggestion that their symptoms might have an emotional/psychological basis; how difficult a task it is for a doctor to impart this opinion to patients without inspiring anger and fierce denial. Patients, according to the author, are blind to their emotional difficulties, they are unreliable reporters, if only they would be willing to see a psychiatrist, their problems could be resolved. In the meantime, she asserts, the symptoms are random, inexplicable, impossible to make sense of. This very randomness is evidence of their origin in emotion, not a physical problem.
As a very experienced psychotherapist who has run a centre for people with mental health problems, I find that psychiatric difficulties are far from random and incomprehensible. The patient who is depressed has experienced much to be depressed about. Anxiety develops in a childhood where separations have occurred at an early age, or discipline has involved threats of abandonment. 'School phobia' is often actually concern for the safety of a sick, anxious, or abused parent. 'Blackouts', once physical disorder had been ruled out, turns out to be behaviour 'learned' in a family where mother was too exhausted by a husband with MS and a son with muscular dystrophy to pay attention to his healthy brother. Psychiatric problems do not drop out of the sky and without a narrative that makes sense of my patients' physical symptoms, I would send them for further physical investigation. 'Medically unexplained' does not automatically mean 'psychiatric', it means what it says.
In my experience, and Dr. Gary Kaplan, author of 'Total Recovery' which deals with chronic pain and depression, agrees...patients are excellent sources of information and very reliable reporters. All that is needed is for them to be asked, respectfully, the questions that allow them to provide the relevant information, and then to be believed. If, instead of trying to figure out tactful ways to impose her view that her patients has a psychiatric problem, the author took the time to listen to the patient's whole history, not just the medical report, it is likely to become evident to the patient herself that her symptoms are connected to various life events, and therefore realise she could be helped by a chance to revisit and resolve those issues.
In the book there are one or two cases in which the narrative leading to psychosomatic symptoms is clearly set out, in others it is hinted at. One patient is caught out as a benefits fraud'; one is clearly a hypochondriac, highly anxious, developing symptom after symptom as each is explained or dismissed.
The author discusses the evolution of thinking about psychosomatic illnesses with some significant omissions...according to critics of Charcot and Freud, their patients' 'hysteria' seems in retrospect to fit descriptions of prefrontal epilepsy. Breuer's Anna O (Bertha Pappenheim) is said to have relapsed and been institutionalised for several years. No mention of the fact that she went on to become a major figure in fighting for women's rights and education within the Jewish community, effectively creating the profession of social worker. But emphasising how symptoms can be created through the intense attention and suggestion involved in hypnosis lays the groundwork for this as a feature in psychosomatic conditions, and is undoubtedly part of the mechanism of genuinely psychosomatic conditions.
The author continually emphasises that patients are resistant to psychiatric diagnoses, that psychosomatic symptoms are random and variable, that there is no understandable pattern in psychiatrically caused symptoms. Symptoms can be created and magnified just by paying too much attention to them. Patients are unreliable reporters of their own experience.
Enter Rachel, and ME/CFS. The groundwork has been laid. ME has lots of variable symptoms, involving many organ systems. Sounds random. But even doctors who 'don't believe in ME' can recognise the complex pattern ... muscle weakness and pain, cognitive problems, problems indicating endocrine dysregulation..disturbed sleep rhythms, control of body temperature, and problems indicating ongoing immune activity (ongoing sore throat, swollen lymph glands, low fever) which vary in location and intensity, and all of which are exacerbated by exertion. A pattern so complex that it would be difficult to construct, or purposely create (and who would want to).
The author tells us that the first outbreak was at the Royal Free Hospital in 1955, when 'even the doctors and nurses' got sick. No, in hospital outbreaks, it is mainly the nurses..the most physically active, and the doctors who get sick. The patients, who are resting, rarely get it. No mention of Los Angeles in 1932, when it was called 'atypical polio'. Can't be EBV, everyone has antibodies to that. Everyone had versions of the polio viruses but very few got sick and even fewer got paralysed. (The ones who exercised after they got sick were the ones who ended up paralysed.).
Rachel, and other ME sufferers, report happy and relatively stress-free childhoods. No traumatic narrative. The author says this is impossible, she herself experiences stress every day. They are obviously in denial.
Rachel is a dancer, desperate to return to her chosen career. She insists ME is physical and wants to be treated with a drug that has been used in the U.S. for treatment of people with viral illnesses. The author points out that no drug has been authorised for use in ME. In fact, many have been tried and benefits found, but research trials don't involve significant numbers of patients, and it's difficult to find funding for research trials except those set up to support the psychiatric model. Such as the PACE Trial, which was funded by the DWP. However it has just been announced that Hemispherx will be trialling Ampligen in an Early Access Programme in Europe and Turkey, so a drug that has benefitted patients in the U.S. for years may now obtain the approvals previously withheld.
Rachel reports having been made worse by her treatment (CBT/GET). The author assures her that if a treatment doesn't work the first time, she must try it again. A recent article by Dr Mark Vint, 'The PACE Trial Invalidates the Use of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Review', published in the Journal of Neurology and Neurobiology, Volume 2.3, March 2016 points out that any drug treatment with a similar rate of adverse effects would be immediately withdrawn.
Pain is a very common symptom, virtually everyone has pain. (No mention of years of severe, untreatable pain, as experienced by many ME patients.).
The author believes that ME/CFS is largely if not completely psychological. She says that in these illnesses, we need to consider what the patient may gain from it. In ME, these gains, after losing ones relationships, profession, status, income, home, previous activities such as sport, hiking, travel, may - or may not- include some sort of disability payment, some level of social help. Often not.
Who might have something to gain from the publication, favourable reviews, the award given to a book which supports this model of ME/CFS?
Or, if, as recommended by the US Institute of Medicine, this illness is recognised as a disease, not a psychiatric condition, in which 'exertion of any kind.....may adversely affect many organ systems'....who has something to lose?
My first thought on reading the book was whether a scientist who evaluates evidence with a critical eye would cover ME or CFS alongside psychosomatic illness and what we used to call hysteria. For one thing, CFS or ME/CFS are still poorly defined and too many studies have excluded individuals with neurological symptoms and signs. Fatigue is often measured using a deeply flawed questionnaire and objective tests that focus on the key symptom of post-exertional exacerbations, are not done. Studies assessing treatments rarely provide useful information such as, ability to return to previous life/job etc. And how effective is an intervention if 50% of the patients remain reliant on disability benefits? In short, the field is complex and the findings are hard to interpret. However, if you do select patients well and follow people who, for instance, have just been diagnosed with a lab confirmed infection, what you see is that the only difference between those who recover and those who don't is the severity of the initial illness. The stress and depression documented in journals may be the result of having to deal with disbelief or a lack of support and understanding. Any psychological factors reported in the literature are almost certainly not the ‘roots’ of the illness, especially when diagnosed using the CDC criteria of 1994. To my knowledge, those who developed ME during the 1948 and 1955 outbreaks were not a subset who had all suffered a traumatic event during childhood or the previous year. They just caught an infection and probably had the wrong genes (cf Lloyd et al).
In this book, ME is described in terms of MUPS and psychosomatic illness. However, I question whether the former is a helpful concept. It should signify that the cause is unclear but in the real world, doctors perceive these disorders as due to, or perpetuated by stress. O’ Sullivan admits she often has the feeling she might have missed something. When assessing fatigue, dizziness and headaches, I wonder if she considers environmental factors such as the additives in food and the products we use at home? The notion that they might play a role is not based on speculation by untrained practitioners. It’s not a fashion. It’s based on reports from the WHO and EU, as well as studies in the Lancet and from Harvard.
Some of the information about ME and CFS is contentious or plain wrong. For example, there were cases before the outbreak at the Royal Free. It's not the same illness as fibromyalgia (just too many differences). As for CBT being the “most effective” treatment, you can only argue that if you ignore the studies of alternative programmes (Taylor, Ho-Yen etc).
A surprising number of the case histories describe people with various dissociative states and pseudoseizures. Careful history taking often revealed a psychological trigger and I know that such patients exist. But some of the author’s thoughts about causation only reinforced my belief that there’s a world of difference between those disorders and ME, CFS and IBS. For example, she refers to patients responding to “every bodily sensation” rather than ignoring them “as the majority of us do” (p. 280), to them losing the ability to interpret their emotional state (p. 243), and to doctors having to figure out “what purpose the illness serves” (p. 309). She also discusses illness as an “escape or explanation for failure” (p. 198) and then comments that patients with ME deny that stress can affect their illness (p.243). “Perhaps those who deny stress do so because they do not feel stress, having converted it to something else.” That’s speculating well beyond the evidence.
The devil is in the detail. For example, O’Sullivan posits that if a symptom cannot be measured, that creates an ideal opportunity for denial to flourish (p. 217). I can see her point but classic ME is more than fatigue and we can support a diagnosis by measuring muscle strength 24 hours after exercise, or by repeating a brain scan like SPECT (Paul et al 1999, Hyde et al 1992, p.vii). Doctors just don’t bother.
On the positive side, the book is easy to read and I found some case histories fascinating. However, the author’s lack of knowledge of ME is very obvious. Even the case history of CFS left me with questions. Onset was gradual rather than post-viral, there was some evidence of overtraining, Lyme disease and fibromyalgia etc. Whether Rachel had classic ME is a moot point.
Few would argue that the mind affects the body. If you hear about someone with lice, whose scalp does not begin to itch? Focusing on ME, I am not persuaded that including it in a book with so many histories of trauma-linked psychiatric disorders is going to increase anyone’s understanding. I fear that many readers will end up with a distorted view of MUPS in general, and ME and IBS in particular. And if you have ME, it’s simply depressing.








