You make the call ...

[Anonymous]

i don't recall him ever posting anything but requests
to post unbiased information, then let the patient
make their own decision.

I think you have been trying to chase him away
just like you have done to Timoclea and others.

If you really are not involved with the mentally
ill then I would say the obsession label fits you!

Come to think of it, have you ever posted that
you were happy that a person with mental illness
was doing better?

[Anonymous]

> On 2006-02-06 18:35:00, Deborah wrote:

>
Oh course it?s true.  Written by a psych survivor.
 
I hope you realize that every psychiatric patient is a survivor.

If one can manage without medications, the APA is not against this.

> He works with and advocates for the ?SMI?, just in a different > way than you do. Very bright and articulate.

How is this different?

> If you?re looking for info on ?forced treatment?, you?re not
> going to find it in TMAP documents. Those guidelines are for > direct care, whether voluntary or involuntary.

TMAP is about direct care ...

> From another "SMI" survivor
> How do We Recover? An Analysis of Psychiatric Survivor
> Oral  ... Nothing about recovery was ever mentioned. Nothing > about hope. Nothing about anything we can do to help
> ourselves. Nothing about empowerment.
> Nothing about wellness. (p. 315)

Huh, check out the current conferences and literature in any part of the community treatments of mental illness. Recovery is ubiquitous.

> Most consumers/survivors/ex-patients involved in the
> modern movement reject the "medical model" of biopsychiatry > and argue that "mental illnesses" are an emotional/behavioral/> biological/spiritual manifestation of a complex interplay of
> social, emotional, and cultural stressors (Bassman, 2001;
> Breggin, 1991, 2003; Chamberlin, 1990; Fisher, 1998, 2003; > Fisher & Ahern, 1999; McLean, 1995; Neugeboren, 1999). We > view "mental illnesses" as temporary crises as opposed to
> physical diseases. We stress empowerment and recovery
> versus maintenance, hope versus resignation
> (Bassman, 2001; Fisher, 1998, 2003).
 
Hey, I just heard Fisher and Chamberlin speak at a conference a couple of weeks ago. Check them out, they are not exactly stating what you have chosen to cut and paste ...

I can save you some time, read this inverview, of which, no one disputes. If you where involved you would here psychiatrists telling their patients this all the time. The system is transforming as the medications and therapies and housing, employment programs get better. Duh, just like any industry.

Go to a conference, you will be surpised that you are biased against the industry by quoting people complaining about what it was like 40 years ago. Come on, educate yourself to 2006 ...

http://www.namiscc.org/Recovery/2005/Em ... tModel.htm

Here is just one snippet, but I want you to read the whole interview so you get it in context:

"During those times I do prescribe medication and say, "This is to help you to gain control of yourself and your life. Hopefully, you won't have to take it for a lifetime."

At the conference he stated that if medication is necessary for a SMI person, his general rule is to stay on it for 10 years, and then try to get off them. If it is possible, great. If not, just stay on them.

No one in the field would disagree with him.

What you seem to prefer quoting is the "lifetime on meds" thing. The only time a person would stay on meds for the rest of their life is if their illness persisted. Recovery and success in life is experienced by many but just like say, diabetes, or high blood pressure the illness needs to be managed. If no symptoms for a long time, weaning off meds is appropriate. What seems to upset you is that many have shown to need the meds for the rest of their lives. Sorry about that, it is just reality.

Up through the 80's and the beginning of the 90's is was common for doctors to quickly taper down meds once the symptoms subsided. It was mostly a failed methodology.

Then studies where done and supported staying on meds did reduce relapse. That is how the arbitrary 10 years minimun in this example got started. That is his protocol. All TMAP is doing
is setting a set of protocols as best practice recommendations.
Still, individual patient care is based on the consumers response
to the therapies and medications, along with their housing, work and social situations.

Seriously, try getting off the web to feed your obsession on the mentally ill. We don't need outsiders making "contributions" like yours. We have plenty of experienced mentally ill who do it better. Please read the whole interview, you will understand.

Meanwhile, please go to some conferences. Go volunteer at a clubhouse or residential crisis, or recovery house. You will
be very surprised, and I hope happy, to what you see.

---

You know the ole quote:

You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time.

Mental health providers are not immune to this quote, just as no one, anywhere is!

Join us, don't fear us!

[Anonymous]

On 2006-02-06 18:35:00, Deborah wrote:

...

Excerpt: To determine if these drugs are worth their outrageous price, the National Institute of Mental Health conducted one of the largest and longest independent studies ever, the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness, or CATIE. Four years and $44 million later, the CATIE study, published in September 2005, reached a startling conclusion: the new drugs "have no substantial advantage" over the old ones.

Atypical antipsychotics, it turns out, are a massive rip-off. They're no better than old drugs which weren't very good to begin with.

Government programs like Medicaid pay for over 90 percent of all antipsychotic prescriptions. Across the nation, state budgets are being squeezed by Medicaid, and Medicaid is being squeezed by the high cost of prescription drugs. Atypical antipsychotics are among the most expensive.

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/depar ... 00666.html

This, to me, is humorous, coming from a survivor.

If meds work they work ... that is all.

If there are unacceptable side effect, then
the patients will not take them, right?

If there are lower side effect, or none,
the patients will take them, sound rational.

The newer anti-psycotics where accepted by
many patients over the older drugs because
of side effects, not because they work any
better.

Remember now, if one is delusional and takes
a medication and they stop, they stop.

Rating the effectiveness is moot.

There was so much pressure on the govt.
to do a study to figure something out because,
yes, obviously the newer drugs are more expensive.

This is in all pharmaceuticals, not just psychotropics.

Prozac's patent has expired, now the generic can
be bought very inexpensively, for example.

Next year Risperdal's patent will expire, it will
become available in generic.

What is more important is biologics in the horizon
and those genetic tests that can determine which
of the current medication will work, lessening
the need for trial and error.

Be patient, the industry is getting better and better
every year.

The more of similar medications is not a rip off,
it allows for a better chance of finding one that
causes no side effects.

Really now, doesn't that make sense!

CATIE proved what we already new.

There was almost no discussion about it when it
came out inside the mental health community.

It was just those on the outside, who wouldn't listen
before, who got some irrelevant ammo to tell us
what we knew.

Thanks, but next time hold the drama, and ask us!

It makes me wonder if the survivor who wrote that
has rebelled so much that he lost touch with what
is happening inside mental health?

I don't know the answer to that one. I just know what
is going on at these conferences and listening to,
and meeting, many of the same people that you use
as references and citations.

Have you met them?