Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Public Sector Gulags => Topic started by: Anonymous on February 03, 2006, 11:45:00 AM
-
Ok, this is the thread where everyone
gets to make the call.
Hindsight is your tool.
Foresight is missing ...
Blame, opinions, stigma, anger, love ...
it could all be here, just participate!
-
On January 3, 1999, Andrew Goldstein, 29, a man with a history of schizophrenia, pushed Kendra Webdale, 32, under the wheels of an oncoming subway train, killing her. Goldstein, who confessed to the crime, has been charged with second-degree murder. According to a police source, he also recounted several past incidents in which he had assaulted women. Goldstein had been hospitalized six times in 1998 for the treatment of schizophrenia, the last time less than three weeks before the attack. He was not taking his antipsychotic medication at the time of the attack and told police that a psychotic episode caused him to believe that a "'spirit or ghost'" entered his body and prompted him to push Webdale under the train. Goldstein was found competent to stand trial for murder on April 5, 1999 after Justice Carol Berkman cited reports from two psychiatrists who contended that Goldstein functioned well while on medication. His first trial, where he pleaded not guity by reason of insanity, ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked on whether he was insane at the time of the murder. Webdale's mother filed two lawsuits in connection with her daughter's death. The first one sued seven private medical institutions for $70 million, charging they were negligent for releasing Goldstein from inpatient hospitalization when he had a history of noncompliance with medication and was known to be dangerous when unmedicated. Subsequent History: In December 2004, a four-judge panel of the State Supreme Court?s Appellate Division unanimously upheld Goldstein's murder conviction. Goldstein, 34, was convicted of second-degree murder on March 22, 2000 and is serving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.
-
Well, if you take the two shrinks' reports, you start from the premis that the medication made him well able to reason and function, right? Whatever that meant to the medical professionals, evidently this guy thought it worth the risk to get off of the stuff. He lost that gamble and so did a presumably innocent bystander.
Now don't take that the wrong way. I'm not trying to cast any disparigment onto Ms. Webdale. It's just that it's unknown. Maybe she was a total stranger, maybe she was his psycho girlfriend who had been antagonizing him for years. It's just unknonwn at this point.
But I believe we all have the right to take that gamble for all the same reasons why we all have the natural right to take drugs if we believe the benefits outweigh the risks.
Which do you think would be worse? Dying a sudden, unexpected, untimely and greusome death under the wheels of a train or getting stuck for life either under incarceration or under the influence of drugs that you can't stand?
And what are the relative odds? I'd say it's an extremely rare event that someone in a state of delusion, whether due to drugs or the lack of them, does any serious harm to anyone. How many people are involuntarily committed unjustly and then driven crazy in the process?
Under the best and most benevolent government in history, the odds are pretty good that for law being enforced. Under this government? Darlin, they sincerely believe that people who smoke pot at all are twice crazy; by virtue of the overpowering haleucenagenic and addictive properties of the demon weed and, by doing it anyway, knowing they might take your kids, toss you in a cell for a long time, fine you and kick your ass in the process.
Clearly, doing something that might bring about that sort of risk is insane, isn't it? Not really, it's just personal dignity. The crime is in properly attributing the bad outcome to the actors, not to a mildly impairing euphoric herb.
But as long as the folks in charge now are holding most of the guns (and this goes back to Eisenhower, in ernest to Nixon) they're not going to mess w/ people who act like Steve Cartisano or Andrea Yates. They're going after the pot smokers. They'll get to the crazy people next, they keep promising.
Nope, I think I'll take my chances w/ you deciding your drugs aren't worth it. You, off your drugs, even if you lived next door to me, scare me a whole bitch of a lot less than those people.
Check this out :wink:If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base.
-- Dave Barry
-
Whew, it is difficult to agree with your premises.
I think is she was his girlfriend or tormentor it would have come out in the news. I would be darn surprised if it was random, when it was in fact not.
I don't agree with blaming the victim. People just don't deserved to be pushed into trains.
---
As far as how many are getting locked up for involuntary treatment?
Hospitals, for example, as stated on this forum before, St. Elizabeth's Psychiatric Hospital had a peak inpatient population, now it is about 500. They are building a new hospital for 300, with 200 having to be discharged soon.
So, compared to the good ole days, before those SSRI's and anti-psychotic drugs that stopped catatonia and unrelenting psychosis ... it was worse. The simple question of, if all these people are forced into involuntary inpatient hospitals, there are no where to be seen in the numbers that the quoted websites that have been posted here.
Math, just simple math de-bunks that delusion.
As for standing back and allowing the illness to influence an individual to the point that they commit a jailable offence. That is working quite well. The mentally ill population in jail is rising at an impressive rate.
It is reported on every one of those MSNBC, and PBS Frontline, stories that the jails are the largest psychiatric facility in each county.
So for those mentally ill that have a violent profile, the price of freedom is a temporary free pass and a permenent negative solution to civil rights ... jail.
As far as you willing, or wanting to live next to a free to have their psychosis run its gamut that is commendable, I don't know if you neighbors would agree with you.
-
Well, what's worse, mental institutions or jail?
There is growing evidence that SSRIs and other psychotic drugs are not the miracle they were hoped to be, and many distressed but not violent people, have committed suicide or homicide while taking them or upon withdrawal. Check the TTI thread on SSRIs for many such stories. Google SSRI + suicide/homicide.
You praise these miracle drugs for closing down mental hospitals and giving the 'MI' freedom, but if that's the case, why are "jails the largest psychiatric facilities in each county"?
There are no simple answers to human distress. The problem with addressing this on such a broad scale is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, just as with the TTI, when many times people's distress is due to anti-life government policies. And consequently, many innocents end up drugged against their will because people like you live in fear of being pushed under a train by someone who you believe would not do such a thing if forced to take drugs. Just not the case. That person may do the very same thing while ON drugs. Just no way of telling how anyone will react to drug treatment. Many pot smokers are serving longer terms than the distressed individual who pushed someone into an oncoming train. And, for all we know, he may have been on drugs, but claimed he wasn't to bolster his defense of insanity.
Mental hospitals, jails- neither useful, both punitive/abusive environments. Holding tanks for the socially undesirable because few people know how to help a distressed person. And unfortunately, many innocents end up being thrown under the industry train. Where is your empathy for those 'victims'. "Oh well, some will be sacrificed in order to save me from the ocassional wigged-out killer"?
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/001658.html (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/001658.html)
-
You praise these miracle drugs for closing down mental hospitals and giving the 'MI' freedom, but if that's the case, why are "jails the largest psychiatric facilities in each county"?
85 percent of Schizphrenics do not take their prescribed meds. I don't know the percentages for
Bipolar and Depression. Although I don't think the
depressed are at risk for going to jail.
Not taking meds plus the high percentage of prisoners testing positive for meth at the time
of their crimes, I heard 90%, unconfirmd, is a
pretty good protocol for re-institutionalization
the mentally ill into jails.
-
"Well, what's worse, mental institutions or jail?"
I am sure a jail is a worse environment that a psychiatric hospital.
For this discussion though, it is not too relevant.
These "forced treatment" law updated movement around the country is for outpatient treatment.
If you don't know what ACT, Assertive Community Treatment, is I can find something to post.
Community = outpatient
-
What I notice is that almost every week there is a news story of someone taking psych drugs having committed suicide or homicide. Something's not working. How can you expect society to jump on the drug treatment wagon when so many of the drugs cause the same effects they profess to 'cure'?
How many people are jailed who WERE taking their drugs and still committed crimes? That's the statistic I'm interested in.
-
On 2006-02-05 08:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
"Well, what's worse, mental institutions or jail?"
I am sure a jail is a worse environment that a psychiatric hospital.
I'm not. Not at all. In jail, nobody's needling you for intimate details, obsessing over your every mood and behavior or trying in ernest to convince you that that you're nuts.
For this discussion though, it is not too relevant.
Yeah it is.
These "forced treatment" law updated movement around the country is for outpatient treatment.
ORLY! And how, prey tell, do you think they enforce this outpatient treatment?
If you don't know what ACT, Assertive Community Treatment, is I can find something to post.
Community = outpatient "
Sure it does, provided you comply w/ your case worker or shrink demands and don't piss them off.
Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer
-
On 2006-02-05 12:37:00, Deborah wrote:
"
What I notice is that almost every week there is a news story of someone taking psych drugs having committed suicide or homicide.
Well, you are the "researcher", I wonder why you don't have the aswers that you ask here. My guess is that the conspiricy site you visit may not be provided all the answers you are asking.
If all the answers where provided your foundation may be made out of sand, and you will find those that have carved out a niche as professional critics and sold you and many others a lot of hearsay that you consume and regurgitate as gospel.
It doesn't take a rocket scientest to know that the amount of people not mentally ill who commit suicide, or homicide on a weekly basis is much, much higher.
Studies have shown that the mentally are are less violent than the mentally ill on a per capita basis.
Any negative event involving a mentally ill person captures the attention of the public, so the news prints it, or shows it on TV.
It also provides the foundation for the anti sites
to have a cause ...
You may not see if now, but someday in retrospect you may recognize this, or maybe not ... who knows how much reality a person who is not involved daily with the symptomatic mental illness would tolerate if they did get involved.
Something's not working. How can you expect society to jump on the drug treatment wagon when so many of the drugs cause the same effects they profess to 'cure'?
Cure? You said cure? Wow, you are either kidding, or writing this down without thinking.
No one ever said psychotropic medication cures mental illness. That is why it is called a chronic illness. Look it up, enjoy the process of getting educated.
How many people are jailed who WERE taking their drugs and still committed crimes? That's the statistic I'm interested in."
Go ahead and research it, let me know the answer - thanks!
-
On 2006-02-05 16:39:00, Eudora wrote:
"I am sure a jail is a worse environment that a psychiatric hospital.
I'm not. Not at all. In jail, nobody's needling you for intimate details, obsessing over your every mood and behavior or trying in ernest to convince you that that you're nuts.
For this discussion though, it is not too relevant.
Yeah it is.
I trust you know your children's issues. Just as equally I have the impression that you don't know your adult mental health issues. Probably because you have not been there, but gained your knowledge by reading biased opinion type information.
Well psych hospitals are not the big manipulative gulags that you think they are. Forever underfunded the complaint is too little care, too little interaction with doctors and professional staff. What they are know as is a safer envirnment than jail.
Why would anyone want to put someone with a chronic disease in a jail, instead of a hospital?
These "forced treatment" law updated movement around the country is for outpatient treatment.
ORLY! And how, prey tell, do you think they enforce this outpatient treatment?
Well that is a no-brainer to answer. If a misdemeaner is committed a diversion program is offered called ACT, an outpatient program.
The person can always refuse and just do the jail time that they where convicted of, there is no manipulation. If one wants to go to jail, go. The outpatient diversion programs are an alternative to jail.
How did you not know that?
If you don't know what ACT, Assertive Community Treatment, is I can find something to post.
Community = outpatient "
Sure it does, provided you comply w/ your case worker or shrink demands and don't piss them off.
Again, "forced" or Assertive Community Treatment is misunderstood. No one convicted of a crime, that has a jail sentence has to do outpatient diversion instead. Just say no! It is simple.
Then the horror of not going to jail would never enter the picture. Just think, no case managers, no medications just do one's time in the paradise they call prison.
-
Where are all these happy symptomatic mental
people that you all are alluding?
I don't see them?
You do?
Where are they, I would like to talk to them
and see how they have become so happy being
chronically symptomatic.
The folks I have met who had psychosis,
delusion and hallucionations hated them.
The people I know who have been manic,
usually cannot remember the mania, and
all hate the aftermath, high debts,
broken relationship, torpedoed careers,
family problems, etc.
The depressed? Again I don't know anyone who wants to continue to be depressed. I also
don't know anyone who looks back on their
active depressions as a good time.
So, I am curious, and really would like
to meet these folks who are happy being
symptomatically mentally ill. Thanks!
-
On 2006-02-05 16:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientest to know that the amount of people not mentally ill who commit suicide, or homicide on a weekly basis is much, much higher.
Really? I think there's the rare case where those are sane options. But, in most practical situations, you'd have to be fuckin' nuts to kill yourself or anyone else.
When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases.
Robert Anton Wilson
-
I can't even sort this out. Sorry. Can you repost that and I'll delete the first one?
Don't let your dogma run out in front of your karma.
--Anonymous
-
Can you repost that and I'll delete the first one?
Definately, I thought I did the quote, /quote
correctly, but when I checked it, what a mess.
For now on, when I answer too many points, I
will just make a new post.
-
But, in most practical situations, you'd have to be fuckin' nuts to kill yourself or anyone else.
Oh, I agree with that, but it is the slang "nuts"
and not the clinical definition.
Perhaps it would make sense to expand the DSM to include homicide and suicide. There must be a reason they are not in there.
In reality they couldn't expand the DSM, most of the pressure is to reduce the diagnosis, not increase.
-
SMI vs the blues
I just want to clarify that this discussion,
I believe, is about serious mental illness,
not the blues.
When discussing this issue of involuntary
treatment, which is difficult, for all parties
when the goal is how to help when the disaster
of negative symptoms persist. One thing that
creeps in, by accident, is differentiating
the cases, or examples where the mental illness
is not so clearly obvious as severe, or "SMI".
In those cases as you correctly point out,
that "making people feel like they are mentally
ill" is, IMHO, correct.
I just found this quote, which I think is reasonable:
http://www.webheights.net/depression/glenm/pb.htm (http://www.webheights.net/depression/glenm/pb.htm)
Dr. Glenmullen argues that antidepressant drug therapy is justified only in moderate to severe cases -- no more than 25 percent of patients currently taking these drugs -- and that we should avoid patients' exposure to these drugs whenever possible.
---
To this end, perhaps, it is my fault when a discussion starts and I seem to be mis-understood
that I should clarify I am talking about SMI. That is what I am exposed to in my daily activities, the really serious mentally ill. No one would doubt that there is a sad, and bad, problem with these folks.
So, now I can understand how, mine, and many others here can differ so much in our opinions when it seems we shouldn't be.
I am not clarifying the type of patients often enough.
I think in many ways I agree with just about everything that is said here, if it where clarified as the not-SMI.
I will try to do better.
-
Jails vs Psychiatric Hospitals (forensic)
Psych hospitals are not the big manipulative gulags that many think they are. Forever underfunded the complaint is too little care, too little interaction with doctors and professional staff. What they are know as is a safer envirnment than jail.
Why would anyone want to put someone with a chronic disease in a jail, instead of a hospital?
---
There are three types of facilites we are talking
about.
Jails / Prisons ... nothing needs to be said, except it is not a very safe enviornment if you
are not up to full capacity.
Regular psych hospitals, meaning to criminals.
This would be like a private chain of psych hospitals, or a wing on a local hospital.
Forensic Psych Hospitals, this would be like where Andrea Yates just got transferred to, and St. Elizabeth's in Washington DC, where John Hinkley is housed.
The problem in these places, is too little care, not too much care.
To a larger degree in the forensic hospitals, than the regular hospitals.
Oops, there is another class: IMD, institutes of mental disease. These are voluntary, although I will need to check if I am right, where the patient has had no luck with treatment and they go there for a six month minimum. Some may differ on the minimum time.
Now, if they get better, great they get out.
There need to be a big explanation here. In a normal psych hospital the insurance companies are doing a review, literally daily, to toss the patient out and save money.
So, if a person is doing poorly and want the help the regular hospital with the discharge pressure is a lousy place for a long term treatment solution (when the short term solutions did not work).
So, it is not like they are getting locked up, remember these IMD's have nothing to do with criminals, or courts. (hmm, saying that I need to check, once again, for accuracy).
It is just a facility where they can work on their illness without the staff determining if they should be released everyday.
-
Outpatient "forced treatment" is confusing.
"ORLY! And how, prey tell, do you think they enforce this outpatient treatment?"
Good point!
If a misdemeaner is committed a diversion program is offered called ACT, an outpatient program.
BTW - did you notice that the new legislation cutting funds for Medicaid are cutting funds for case managers, which will torpedo ACT. So, go figure, one arm of legislature is passing laws to do diversion programs to offer the SMI ACT, while the other arm is making it non-fundable.
At the same time, in California the Governator just announced an 11 billion dollar prison building program!
It is no guess which direction the Gov. wants to go. Jail them, wharehouse them. Which makes the whole involuntary treatment issue moot.
Sorry, got off track.
The person can always refuse and just do the jail time that they where convicted of, there is no manipulation. If one wants to go to jail, go. The outpatient diversion programs are an alternative to jail.
-
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/depar ... 00766.html (http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/overtheedge/000766.html)
Some great comments follow the article.
Schizophrenia Treatment in 7 Easy Steps
Adapted from the Michigan Implementation of Medication Algorithms Physician Procedural Manual, Appendix I: Guidelines for Treating Schizophrenia
Excerpted, abridged, and translated into plain English by Ben Hansen, MindFreedom Michigan
If you're a doctor treating a patient for schizophrenia, the Physician Procedural Manual will help guide your clinical practice and make things a lot easier for you.
At each step of the way, always remember your three options: continue the present drug regimen, adjust the drug dose, or move on to another drug. Don't even THINK about taking your patient off drugs. The manual plainly states, "The schizophrenia algorithm contains no guidelines for antipsychotic medication discontinuation, which is anticipated to be a rare event in the typical mental health clinic patient population."
Your main task as a physician is to prescribe drugs. As a rule of thumb, it's always best to prescribe a new drug before its patent expires. For this reason, the new drugs called atypical antipsychotics are an excellent choice as first-line treatment.
Atypical antipsychotics cost twenty times more than older drugs, but cost is only one factor to consider when making a clinical judgement. Another factor is profit. With this in mind, schizophrenia can be treated in seven distinct stages, outlined below.
STAGE 1. Prescribe an atypical antipsychotic such as Zyprexa, Risperdal, or Seroquel. Some physicians will select a drug based on whichever sales rep last visited the office, but this is not recommended. Whatever brand you choose, if your patient shows little or no improvement after 4 weeks, go to the next stage.
STAGE 2. Switch to a different atypical antipsychotic. You may select a particular drug based on the quality of free ballpoint pens provided by the manufacturer, but this is not recommended. If results are unsatisfactory after a few weeks, go to the next stage.
STAGE 3. Switch to yet another atypical antipsychotic, or try a conventional antipsychotic such as Haldol for old times' sake. If progress remains unsatisfactory after a few more weeks, go to the next stage.
STAGE 4. Prescribe Clozaril. Since there's a 50-50 chance the patient will respond unfavorably to Clozaril, you may skip this stage and go directly to the next stage.
STAGE 5. Prescribe Clozaril in combination with another antipsychotic, or Clozaril in combination with electroshock. The manual says, "Almost all studies have shown beneficial effects of electroschock for persistent psychotic states." The manual also says, "There are no controlled studies of electroshock for schizophrenia in which number of treatments, duration of treatments, and electrode placement have been systematically evaluated." Therefore, if you're going to use electroshock on the patient, be sure to use it at least ten times, on both sides of the brain. If this proves unsuccessful, go to the next stage.
---------------------------------------------
Your main task as a physician is to prescribe drugs.
STAGE 6. Try one of the few remaining atypical antipsychotics you haven't tried yet. If results are satisfactory, that would be nice but it's not very likely at this stage, so go to the next stage.
STAGE 7. Prescribe any combination of two antipsychotics OR two antipsychotics plus electroshock OR two antipsychotics plus a mood stabilizer such as Depakote. Maintain this regimen for at least 12 weeks, if your patient lives that long.
Helpful hints for the clinician
In addition to prescribing drugs for schizophrenia, you may need to prescribe drugs for various "co-existing symptoms" of schizophrenia, such as sedatives for agitation, mood stabilizers for hostility, hypnotics for insomnia, antidepressants for depression, and so on.
You may also need to prescribe drugs to treat adverse side effects of drugs prescribed for schizophrenia, such as diabetes caused by Zyprexa or tremors caused by Risperdal, not to mention side effects of drugs prescribed for co-existing symptoms, such as hostility caused by antidepressants prescribed for depression and/or depression caused by mood stabilizers prescribed for hostility, and so on.
Before long, you'll be prescribing drugs to manage side effects of drugs prescribed to manage side effects, like a dog chasing its tail. The manual explains, "Using a medication to treat a side effect can result in additional adverse effects." This is why "side effects algorithms" are included in the manual as well. Don't worry. Just follow the manual.
Always remember to monitor your patient's progress. This is a routine task which may be performed in 5 minutes or less during regular office visits. Use the 8-point rating scale summarized below.
1. Does patient believe others have acted maliciously or with discriminatory intent?
2. Has patient had odd, strange or bizarre thoughts in the past 7 days?
3. Has patient had visions or seen things others cannot see?
4. Is patient's speech confused, vague, or disorganized?
5. When asked a question, does patient pause for long periods before answering?
6. Does patient's face remain blank or expressionless? ("Disregard changes in facial expression due to abnormal involuntary movements, such as tics and tardive dyskinesia," the manual advises.)
7. Does patient seem withdrawn or unsociable?
8. Does patient dress sloppily, or come to your office with poorly groomed hair? ("Do not rate grooming as poor if it is simply done in what one might consider poor taste," the manual advises.)
If the answer to all eight questions is no, your patient is probably not taking medications as prescribed. When noncompliance is a problem, the patient should be restrained if necessary and forcibly injected with a timed-release antipsychotic. Maintain this regimen until patient gains insight into the need for treatment.
The cutting edge of science
This project was modeled after the Texas Implementation of Medication Algorithms. A distinguished panel of 25 Michigan experts very carefully replaced the word "Texas" with the word "Michigan" in all appropriate spots.
As new studies financed by drug companies discover ways to expand the market, and new products developed by drug companies enter the market, "this algorithm will be periodically revised and updated."
Funding for the Michigan Implementation of Medication Algorithms was provided by the Ethel and James Flinn Foundation of Detroit. The Michigan Pharmacy Quality Improvement Project, promoting the same agenda and with several of the same committee members, is funded by Eli Lilly, maker of Zyprexa. Lilly sales representatives carry a wide variety of ballpoint pens and other cool stuff.
If you think this is a joke, look at the original document: http://www.mimentalhealthebp.net (http://www.mimentalhealthebp.net)
Ben Hansen is an anti-psychiatry activist who lives in Traverse City, Michigan.
His email address is [email protected] . Read his last article for Ragged Edge, CATIE & You.
-
Here it is, algorithyms and all:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/mhprograms/Disclaimer.shtm (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/mhprograms/Disclaimer.shtm)
-
On 2006-02-05 19:52:00, Deborah wrote:
"http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/overtheedge/000766.html
Some great comments follow the article.
I guess someone typed this up, it must be true!
It is difficult to not call you an idiot for posting this crap.
I will try not to call you an idiot, miss cut and paste, no matter the content!
-
On 2006-02-05 19:09:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
But, in most practical situations, you'd have to be fuckin' nuts to kill yourself or anyone else.
Oh, I agree with that, but it is the slang "nuts"
and not the clinical definition.
Perhaps it would make sense to expand the DSM to include homicide and suicide. There must be a reason they are not in there.
In reality they couldn't expand the DSM, most of the pressure is to reduce the diagnosis, not increase.
"
They can't expand the DSM? The only reason that would be true is if they had already listed every human distress known to man.
"Then, in 1994, the manual exploded to 886 pages and 365 conditions, representing a 340% increase in the number of diseases over 42 years."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sun ... ay-opinion (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/editorials/la-op-psych1jan01,0,1868753.story?coll=la-home-sunday-opinion)
January 1, 2006
Los Angeles Times
Psychiatry's sick compulsion: turning weaknesses into diseases
By Irwin Savodnik, Irwin Savodnik is a psychiatrist and philosopher who teaches at UCLA.
IT'S JAN. 1. Past time to get your inoculation against seasonal affective disorder, or SAD - at least according to the American Psychiatric Assn. As Americans rush to return Christmas junk, bumping into each other in Macy's and Best Buy, the psychiatric association ponders its latest iteration of feeling bad for the holidays. And what is the association selling? Mental illness. With its panoply of major depression, dysthymic disorder, bipolar disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, the association is waving its Calvinist flag to remind everyone that amid all the celebration, all the festivities, all the exuberance, many people will "come down with" or "contract" or "develop" some variation of depressive illness.
The association specializes in turning ordinary human frailty into disease. In the last year, ads have been appearing in psychiatric journals about possible treatments for shyness, a "syndrome" not yet officially recognized as a disease. You can bet it will be in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-IV, published by the association. As it turns out, the association has been inventing mental illnesses for the last 50 years or so. The original diagnostic manual appeared in 1952 and contained 107 diagnoses and 132 pages, by my count. The second edition burst forth in 1968 with 180 diagnoses and 119 pages. In 1980, the association produced a 494-page tome with 226 conditions. Then, in 1994, the manual exploded to 886 pages and 365 conditions, representing a 340% increase in the number of diseases over 42 years.
Nowhere in the rest of medicine has such a proliferation of categories occurred. The reason for this difference between psychiatry and other medical specialties has more to do with ideology than with science. A brief peek at both areas makes this point clear. All medicine rests on the premise that disease is a manifestation of diseased tissue. Hepatitis comes down to an inflamed liver, while lung tissue infiltrated with pneumococcus causes pneumonia. Every medical student learns this principle. Where, though, is the diseased tissue in psychopathological conditions?
Unlike the rest of medicine, psychiatry diagnoses behavior that society doesn't like. Yesterday it was homosexuality. Tomorrow it will be homophobia. Someone who declares himself the messiah, who insists that fluorescent lights talk to him or declares that she's the Virgin Mary, is an example of such behavior. Such people are deemed - labeled, really - sick by psychiatrists, and often they are taken off to hospitals against their will. The "diagnosis" of such "pathological behavior" is based on social, political or aesthetic values.
This is confusing. Behavior cannot be pathological (or healthy, for that matter). It can simply comport with, or not comport with, our nonmedical expectations of how people should behave. Analogously, brains that produce weird or obnoxious behaviors are not diseased. They are brains that produce atypical behaviors (which could include such eccentricities as dyed hair or multiple piercings or tattoos that nobody in their right mind could find attractive).
Lest one think that such a view is the rant of a Scientologist, it is no such thing. Scientology offers polemic to lull the faithful into belief. Doctors and philosophers offer argument to provoke debate.
It's a natural step from using social and political standards to create a psychiatric diagnosis to using them to influence public policy. Historically, that influence has appeared most dramatically in the insanity defense. Remember Dan White, the man who murdered San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978? Or John Hinckley, who shot President Reagan in 1981? Or Mark David Chapman, who killed John Lennon? White, whose psychiatrist came up with the "Twinkie defense" - the high sugar content of White's favorite junk food may have fueled his murderous impulses - was convicted and paroled after serving five years, only to commit suicide a year later.
The erosion of personal responsibility is, arguably, the most pernicious effect of the expansive role psychiatry has come to play in American life. It has successfully replaced huge chunks of individual accountability with diagnoses, clinical histories and what turn out to be pseudoscientific explanations for deviant behavior.
Pathology has replaced morality. Treatment has supplanted punishment. Imprisonment is now hospitalization. From the moral self-castigation we find in the writings of John Adams, we have been drawn to Woody Allen-style neuroses. Were the psychiatric association to scrutinize itself more deeply and reconsider its expansionist diagnostic programs, it would, hopefully, make a positive contribution to our culture by not turning the good and bad into the healthy and the sick.
The last thing the United States needs is more self-indulgent, pseudo-insightful, overly self-conscious babble about people who can't help
themselves. Better, as Voltaire would put it, to cultivate our gardens and be accountable for who and what we are.
==
You can write a letter to the editor here: [email protected]
-
Yup, Irvin, Thomas Szasz buddy:
http://www.szasz.com/SymposiumProgram.html (http://www.szasz.com/SymposiumProgram.html)
Enough said.
How about reading, just the posts here,
of those that are being treated for
SMI, and what they have tried to tell
you time, after time.
Why is it so important to ignore your
peers and quote the fringe niche anti
psychiatry money makers in all your
obsessive negatives posts about anything
to do with psychiatry, meds, light therapy
you name it, your twist is negative.
Now, again, why is it so important to you,
someone who avoids finding out something
about the serious mentally ill first hand
to be so obsessed on this issue.
You have nothing to do with mental illness
except to cut and paste any negative story
you can find in the nice anti market out
there.
But you are obsessed?
Why?
On the issue of treating those that are sick ...
Why would you want to spread your biased info
around and even ignore your peers on this forum
who have tried with really well written testimonials to help you to understand, until
you drive them away.
Why?
-
I forgot to mention, go and read
the damn information from TMAP.
All 80 pages, on average, for each
diagnosis.
Then when you are done, and still have
your brick barrier blocking all logic,
then, go and type "forcibly injected"
and tell me where it is? What page?
Idiot!
-
On 2006-02-05 20:03:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Here it is, algorithyms and all:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/mhprograms/Disclaimer.shtm (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/mhprograms/Disclaimer.shtm)"
And here's the investigative reports on the TMAP scam in Texas, and 'how well' it helped those forced into 'treatment'.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 120#122792 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10271&forum=9&start=120#122792)
-
What the heck does that link have to do with TMAP?
Gotta go, help out the mom I just posted about ...
-
Oh course it?s true. Written by a psych survivor.
Ben Hansen- Member of the Department of Community Health Recipient Rights Advisory Committee, submitted this report concerning Michigan law. Michigan law states that a person may not receive involuntary ECT if s/he has no guardian, but probate judges in the state are ignoring the law. This report details cases where the probate judge violated state law in issuing orders that would allow involuntary ECT. Says the author, "Consent laws are made a mockery by judges who rule that individuals are competent when they consent to treatment, but incompetent when they refuse treatment."
http://www.ect.org/news/forced.shtml (http://www.ect.org/news/forced.shtml)
He also wrote this:
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 (http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/closerlook/000666.html)
And this informative piece on ?insidious, life-long, psychiatric disease?
http://www.adhdfraud.org/commentary/11-30-00-2.htm (http://www.adhdfraud.org/commentary/11-30-00-2.htm)
He works with and advocates for the ?SMI?, just in a different way than you do. Very bright and articulate.
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. And, the link has everything to do with the scam around how TMAP was created and how it affected Texas citizens used as guinea pigs.
From another "SMI" survivor
How do We Recover? An Analysis of Psychiatric Survivor Oral Histories, by Oryx Cohen, in Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol . 45 No. 3, Summer 2005 333-354
Excerpt:
Recovery has only recently become a word used in relation to the experience of psychiatric symptoms. Those of us who experience psychiatric symptoms are commonly told that these symptoms are incurable, that we will have to live with them for the rest of our lives, that the medications, if they (health care professionals) can find the right ones or the right combination, may help, and that we will always have to take the medications. Many of us have even been told that these symptoms will worsen as we get older. 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)
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).
Evidence for Recovery
Under the medical model, in which "mental illnesses "are viewed as "brain diseases," complete recovery is not a possibility. However, research and experience show that many of us labeled as "severely mentally ill" do recover over time, especially when involved in programs that emphasize hope, optimism, and potential (Fisher, 2003; Fisher & Ahern, 1999). Courtney Harding's longitudinal study that tracked more than 1,300 subjects originally diagnosed with schizophrenia during several decades found that one half to two thirds "had achieved considerable improvement or recovered" (Harding, Brooks, Ashikaga, Strauss, & Breier, 1987, p. 727).
Other studies have compared traditional hospital environments to nontraditional community programs such as residential lodges and clubhouse settings. None of these studies has found traditional models to be more effective. In fact, the bulk of this research points to the superiority of nontraditional alternatives, especially in terms of cost and the promotion of independent living (Mowbray & Freddolino, 1986).
http://akmhcweb.org/recovery/oryx_journ ... _psych.pdf (http://akmhcweb.org/recovery/oryx_journal_of_humanist_psych.pdf)
-
On 2006-02-05 20:36:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Yup, Irvin, Thomas Szasz buddy:
http://www.szasz.com/SymposiumProgram.html (http://www.szasz.com/SymposiumProgram.html)
Enough said.
How about reading, just the posts here,
of those that are being treated for
SMI, and what they have tried to tell
you time, after time.
Why is it so important to ignore your
peers and quote the fringe niche anti
psychiatry money makers in all your
obsessive negatives posts about anything
to do with psychiatry, meds, light therapy
you name it, your twist is negative.
Now, again, why is it so important to you,
someone who avoids finding out something
about the serious mentally ill first hand
to be so obsessed on this issue.
You have nothing to do with mental illness
except to cut and paste any negative story
you can find in the nice anti market out
there.
But you are obsessed?
Why?
On the issue of treating those that are sick ...
Why would you want to spread your biased info
around and even ignore your peers on this forum
who have tried with really well written testimonials to help you to understand, until
you drive them away.
Why?
"
Please answer this post, I prefer that you stop
being evasive. Be honest, thank you.
-
Who are the 'peers' that I have ignored, Paul?
Are you suggesting that I defer to your and Julie's bias?
I have not once suggested that either of your flush your drugs and seek alternative treatment. What exactly do you need from me?
The only obsession that I can see, is your ongoing lame, slanderous, attacks on me for posting information contrary to your beliefs.
I was posting here long before you descended upon the forum with your pro-drug, pro-program attitude. Get over it. We are having discussion/ debate here. If that's uncomfortable for you, then spread your propoganda elsewhere. It's that simple.
-
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?
-
> 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 (http://www.namiscc.org/Recovery/2005/EmpowermentModel.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!
-
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 (http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/closerlook/000666.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?