It is just shocking to me that so many people misperceive and fear family-based treatment.
I'm no dummy: I know even FBT is no panacea. It won't cure everyone. But it cures a damn sight more folks than anything else we've got. And a lot quicker, too.
So what's the problem? We don't advise against penicillin because some people are allergic to it, do we? We don't dismiss Prozac because hey, it doesn't work for everyone.
So why are people so dismissive of Maudsley? I'm talking about people who haven't worked with it, who are going only by what others say about it.
Maybe it's like a generic medication--there's no big money to be made on it, so there's no incentive to fall in love with it.
But as Daniel Le Grange said to me recently, "We're not doing very well by our children." FBT helps children and adolescents, no question about it. The statistics are very good--80 to 90 percent of those treated with it are still recovered after five years.
FBT doesn't get into cause. It doesn't have an opinion, so to speak, on psychodynamic issues. It rather neatly sidesteps them, at least for phase 1 of treatment--weight restoration.
Is there anyone out there who can truly argue with the need for someone who is severely malnourished to gain weight?
I just don't get it.