Your experiences with mental illness

[citizen cane]

What you view as accuracy isn't accurate. We all know that no one knews how mental illness works biologically, nor do we ever know if meds are going to work. Because we just don't know when it comes to mental illness. There's a ton of mystery. And I'm not being nice, I'm saying that the post that was made in reply to me was a post I agree with and find useful.

Also, I expect a lot more from the mental health profession than it's ever given. Improve first and then talk to me about my expectations.

Nobody knows exactly what causes some mental illnesses. We do, however, have decades of research that indicate risk factors, effective medications, etc. So what I hear you saying is either you expect something that is not humanly possible at this point, or that your worldview in incompatible with the facts.

 

[Mole]

There was a moment of hope with R.D.Laing in Kingsley Hall in London, Kingsley Hall: RD Laing's experiment in anti-psychiatry | Books | The Guardian.

But hope was lost with the de-institutionalisation of the mental asylums and the casting of the inmates out onto the street as a cost cutting measure.

So today we see those suffering from a mental illness out begging on the streets, and self medicating.

 

[magpie]

Nobody knows exactly what causes some mental illnesses. We do, however, have decades of research that indicate risk factors, effective medications, etc. So what I hear you saying is either you expect something that is not humanly possible at this point, or that your worldview in incompatible with the facts.

Your decades of research had me misdiagnosed multiple times, put on medication I shouldn't have been given, told that my actual physical illnesses were psychological, and had me assualted by staff in a psych ward. I realize thought that hoping that wouldn't happen means my worldview is incompatible with facts.

 

[magpie]

The above is my experience with mental illness. It's not off topic.

 

[Pionart]

Nobody knows exactly what causes some mental illnesses. We do, however, have decades of research that indicate risk factors, effective medications, etc. So what I hear you saying is either you expect something that is not humanly possible at this point, or that your worldview in incompatible with the facts.

We have milennia of research on spiritual emergencies.

I'm sure a few decades of lab coat pharma coax research warrants a dismissal of all of that.

 

[citizen cane]

We have milennia of research on spiritual emergencies.

Utilizing the scientific method and that is equal to or better than medical/ psych research? Please link!

 

[á´…eparted]

Your decades of research had me misdiagnosed multiple times, put on medication I shouldn't have been given, told that my actual physical illnesses were psychological, and had me assualted by staff in a psych ward. I realize thought that hoping that wouldn't happen means my worldview is incompatible with facts.

You might not like this but... you're taking this too personally. Look, I know this matters a lot to you, and it's deeply personal due to all the trauma you went through. I've read about your experiences and your blog. It's really horrible what you went through and it's emphatically not right that what happened happened.

Regardless, your individual experiences doesn't invalidate the field. What it does do is point out flaws in the system and field that need to be fixed. This will take time, and the science is still evolving and growing. Still, your experiences are not the norm. If they were the field would not be as effective as it is, nor well regarded by the medical community and those outside of it as well. I have had good experiences within psychology and psychiatry overall, and the latter has helped me significantly as of recent.

You're right to be critical, but you can become excessively critical, which is why you're getting pushback from people right now. They're not trying invalidate your world view, and nor am I.

Also fwiw [MENTION=9913]captain curmudgeon[/MENTION] is a lisenced social worker so he does have experiences within this.

 

[Pionart]

Utilizing the scientific method and that is equal to or better than medical/ psych research? Please link!

"Scientific method", "psych"... I'm trying to link them, but it's kinda tricky.

Science is one particular methodology. If you think new ways outweigh old ways, then that's your thing, but to me the search for truth outweighs the motives of the searchers.

The rape of science through its dogmatisation is tragic at the least.

 

[magpie]

You might not like this but... you're taking this too personally. Look, I know this matters a lot to you, and it's deeply personal due to all the trauma you went through. I've read about your experiences and your blog. It's really horrible what you went through and it's emphatically not right that what happened happened.

Regardless, your individual experiences doesn't invalidate the field. What it does do is point out flaws in the system and field that need to be fixed. This will take time, and the science is still evolving and growing. Still, your experiences are not the norm. If they were the field would not be as effective as it is, nor well regarded by the medical community and those outside of it as well. I have had good experiences within psychology and psychiatry overall, and the latter has helped me significantly as of recent.

You're right to be critical, but you can become excessively critical, which is why you're getting pushback from people right now. They're not trying invalidate your world view, and nor am I.

Also fwiw [MENTION=9913]captain curmudgeon[/MENTION] is a lisenced social worker so he does have experiences within this.

Your individual experience doesn't validate the field. How do you know I'm not in the majority? You're wrong to think that because the field is well regarded by the medical community, lots of other people don't experience what I do. It's the medical community that's responsible in the first place. Of course they view their own practices positively.

Also, it's not like there is research or statistics on the amount of people harmed. So how could you possibly know what is and isn't the majority. It's not talked about and when it is, it receives pushback. So there will never be an accurate view of this until it can be fully acknowledged.

And the flaws I experienced weren't all due to science. They were human flaws. Flaws of how we treat people we diagnose. And that type of treatment being justified is still a prevailing attitude.

 

[magpie]

I hate having arguments like this because it feels so incredibly invalidating and it reaffirms that no one gives a shit because I'm a "minority." If this were an issue with any other minority the same people who are arguing with me would be jumping in to help me. Too bad I'm not trans or a POC.

 

[citizen cane]

Your decades of research had me misdiagnosed multiple times, put on medication I shouldn't have been given, told that my actual physical illnesses were psychological, and had me assualted by staff in a psych ward. I realize thought that hoping that wouldn't happen means my worldview is incompatible with facts.

No, the decades of research did not have any of those things happen to you. Incompetent humans had those things happen to you. What troubles me is that you are aware of this and yet you seem convinced that alternate, less thoroughly researched methods of treatment would result in a better outcome than you are currently experiencing. I'm not discounting the trauma you went through, I'm simply saying that said trauma is not the whole picture here. Also [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] it's worth noting that I'm not a licensed social worker. That said, I do have a bachelor's degree and two years experience in the field and I was raised with one parent in the nursing profession.

 

[á´…eparted]

Your individual experience doesn't validate the field. How do you know I'm not in the majority? You're wrong to think that because the field is well regarded by the medical community, lots of other people don't experience what I do. It's the medical community that's responsible in the first place. Of course they view their own practices positively.

Also, it's not like there is research or statistics on the amount of people harmed. So how could you possibly know what is and isn't the majority. It's not talked about and when it is, it receives pushback. So there will never be an accurate view of this until it can be fully acknowledged.

And the flaws I experienced weren't all due to science. They were human flaws. Flaws of how we treat people we diagnose. And that type of treatment being justified is still a prevailing attitude.

The reason I stated my experience was not to validate the field, but to illustrate that people have different experiences. The most personal I can get with it, is if I were not prescribed the medications I were given, I probably would have died within a year or two. Does it validate the field totally? No, but it gives it credit. Just as your experience removes credit. What it does point out that it's neither purely good, or purely bad.

How am I wrong to think that it's well regarded by the medical community? If you want to take the stance that an internal view within the field is not reliable, sure that can be fair and I can see why people don't trust internal reviews. Still, it's regarded because there is lots of scientific and medical evidence published in journals, reviews, and government reports that show the benefits and help increased health in those who receive it. To be more specific: when a medication for psychiatric disorders goes through clinical trials, it has to clearly demomstrate a remission of symptoms in individual afflicted with the disorder it's trying to mend. If these things couldn't be shown, the field would collapse. That's what I mean by well regarded: the field helps people, and data backs it up.

The question them remains what the amount of harm it causes is. Currently there is little data on this to my knowledge beyond failed clinical trials, which doesn't differ signigicantly from standard medical clinical trials. You are correct that most of the issues you experienced were due to human nature/error, and that is honestly something that is really difficult to solve, and is sort of a separate issue from psychology/psychiatry itself. Even if we do have a more rigorous scientific understanding, and a much more efficient diagnoistic system, it still wouldn't completely resolve the human issue. It sucks but it's not a fully solveable problem.

Ultimately though, you do lack solid evidence beyond your personal experiences. You're the one being critical and thus bare the burden of proof. Most of your proof is philosophical, experiential, and anecdotal. It goes insofar as to (as said previously) point out flaws, areas that need to be fixed/resolved, and were people need to have a critical eye. However, it does not bare enough to trounce the hard data that psychololgy and psychiatrty has.

 

[magpie]

No, the decades of research did not have any of those things happen to you. Incompetent humans had those things happen to you. What troubles me is that you are aware of this and yet you seem convinced that alternate, less thoroughly researched methods of treatment would result in a better outcome than you are currently experiencing. I'm not discounting the trauma you went through, I'm simply saying that said trauma is not the whole picture here. Also [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] it's worth noting that I'm not a licensed social worker. That said, I do have a bachelor's degree and two years experience in the field and I was raised with one parent in the nursing profession.

Humans research. People applying their research resulted in them deciding those things would be best for people. It was people and research because they go together. Anything would've resulted in a better outcome than I experienced. Trauma isn't the whole picture but if it exists at all, it's a problem, and the problem needs to be taken care of now. Not in a few decades. And if I were talking about any other subject people wouldn't say "trauma isn't the whole picture" like that makes it okay. Like that means there isn't a huge, central problem.

The fact that you have experience in the medical field doesn't make what you say true or meaningful.

 

[magpie]

The reason I stated my experience was not to validate the field, but to illustrate that people have different experiences. The most personal I can get with it, is if I were not prescribed the medications I were given, I probably would have died within a year or two. Does it validate the field totally? No, but it gives it credit. Just as your experience removes credit. What it does point out that it's neither purely good, or purely bad.

How am I wrong to think that it's well regarded by the medical community? If you want to take the stance that an internal view within the field is not reliable, sure that can be fair and I can see why people don't trust internal reviews. Still, it's regarded because there is lots of scientific and medical evidence published in journals, reviews, and government reports that show the benefits and help increased health in those who receive it. To be more specific: when a medication for psychiatric disorders goes through clinical trials, it has to clearly demomstrate a remission of symptoms in individual afflicted with the disorder it's trying to mend. If these things couldn't be shown, the field would collapse. That's what I mean by well regarded: the field helps people, and data backs it up.

The question them remains what the amount of harm it causes is. Currently there is little data on this to my knowledge beyond failed clinical trials, which doesn't differ signigicantly from standard medical clinical trials. You are correct that most of the issues you experienced were due to human nature/error, and that is honestly something that is really difficult to solve, and is sort of a separate issue from psychology/psychiatry itself. Even if we do have a more rigorous scientific understanding, and a much more efficient diagnoistic system, it still wouldn't completely resolve the human issue. It sucks but it's not a fully solveable problem.

Ultimately though, you do lack solid evidence beyond your personal experiences. You're the one being critical and thus bare the burden of proof. Most of your proof is philosophical, experiential, and anecdotal. It goes insofar as to (as said previously) point out flaws, areas that need to be fixed/resolved, and were people need to have a critical eye. However, it does not bare enough to trounce the hard data that psychololgy and psychiatrty has.

I know people have different experiences. But how come we're not allowed to talk about the negative experiences? Someone always has to jump in to say, "well, it helped me so that means it's not an issue."

You're not wrong to think it's well regarded by the medical community. And clinical trials are fine. But what's also well regarded is literally assualting people and other practices in psych wards. That's how they keep happening. Forcing medication on people is common and well regarded. Sedating people is common and well regarded. Putting people in isolation is common and well regarded. Or else it wouldn't still happen.

I will never be able to give solid evidence because like I said, there are no studies on harm. And there aren't because it isn't considered harm. My experiences will never be a valid thing, I get it. I can't give anyone evidence that matters and I'll never be able to.

I'm going to shower now and I'm done with this conversation. I can see that discussing this is utterly pointless, like it is in real life. Have a nice day.

 

[citizen cane]

Humans research. People applying their research resulted in them deciding those things would be best for people. It was people and research because they go together. Anything would've resulted in a better outcome than I experienced. Trauma isn't the whole picture but if it exists at all, it's a problem, and the problem needs to be taken care of now. Not in a few decades. And if I were talking about any other subject people wouldn't say "trauma isn't the whole picture" like that makes it okay. Like that means there isn't a huge, central problem.

The fact that you have experience in the medical field doesn't make what you say true or meaningful.

I'm not saying that there isn't a huge problem. I'm saying that without scientific information, we can't fix it. But there is also little chance that we can ever fix it completely. Nothing in life is precisely accurate 100% of the time, and few things in life can be fixed as soon as we would like them to be. Another central problem is that you seem to be unable to understand that not everything can work 100% effectively right now. That is not how the world has ever worked or will ever work.

 

[á´…eparted]

I know people have different experiences. But how come we're not allowed to talk about the negative experiences? Someone always has to jump in to say, "well, it helped me so that means it's not an issue."

You're not wrong to think it's well regarded by the medical community. And clinical trials are fine. But what's also well regarded is literally assualting people and other practices in psych wards. That's how they keep happening. Forcing medication on people is common and well regarded. Sedating people is common and well regarded. Putting people in isolation is common and well regarded. Or else it wouldn't still happen.

I will never be able to give solid evidence because like I said, there are no studies on harm. And there aren't because it isn't considered harm. My experiences will never be a valid thing, I get it. I can't give anyone evidence that matters and I'll never be able to.

I'm going to shower now and I'm done with this conversation. I can see that discussing this is utterly pointless, like it is in real life. Have a nice day.

I think this is where the distinction needs to be made then:

When you're critical of psychology and psychiatry, you discuss it in such a way that doesn't point out the issues you have with it clearly. Mainly, you take issue with the humanistic aspect of it- people being assualted and mistreated in psych wards. When others hear you be critical, they assume you're saying the field as an entirety is bad and doesn't help. I've discussed this with you several times so I know what you more or less mean with this, and that you're not critical or against everything about it. Others don't know that though.

If you focus on the aspects you have issues with- mistreatment and lack of proper regard to patients still being human, and they may be sick but still deserve the care and attention that mentally healthy people get, then you will be much less likely to get negative feedback or pushback.

You are absolutely right, the specific things you take issue with are a serious problem, and have been for decades. They've improved massively, but there is still a long way to go. It's the never-ending human problem and people not taking their work seriously enough, and not taking the time to consider the individual.

Sorry if this discussion upset you and stressed you out. This was not my intent or desire, and I sincerely doubt it was anyone elses either.

 

[magpie]

I'm not saying that there isn't a huge problem. I'm saying that without scientific information, we can't fix it. But there is also little chance that we can ever fix it completely. Nothing in life is precisely accurate 100% of the time, and few things in life can be fixed as soon as we would like them to be. Another central problem is that you seem to be unable to understand that not everything can work 100% effectively right now. That is not how the world has ever worked or will ever work.

I can't believe you're telling me nothing in life is accurate one hundred percent of the time, like I don't know that or expect it to be. This is not an issue of accuracy. It's an issue of abuse. But I guess some people just have to fall through the cracks.

 

[Frosty]

Was just about to invalidate everything I am about to say- but no. Nope.

Anyways.

I really truly believe that my latest medication is 'a miracle drug'- at least for me.

Before I was on antidepressants... And really- they helped a very little bit but it was almost more stressful to be on them than not- because they felt like I tease. I was still SUPER depressed and everything- every single thing- just felt so hard. And I was afraid that- well- Im already on anti-depressants and I'm still depressed- whats wrong with me? I considered going off of them... Constantly.

But then my doctor put me on an antipsychotic. And within days I felt just so much better. I started sleeping. I felt- my brain felt just so much calmer. It was almost like before I was a frantic zookeeper trying to keep all the animals in their habitats- it was stressful and it was constantly just chaos. But after starting the seroquel- I felt things start to change. They got better and better to the point where- I am NOT suicidal in any way. I can honestly say that and it feels so good to be able to do that- and I really really don't think I would be able to say that without the seroquel.

So maybe what Im saying is- drugs DONT work for everyone- unfortunately. And drugs that DO work- might not work as well as youd like/there might be some problems with them. But when you DO get a drug that works- it can just shift your baseline just so much- just a little- so you can start to build on it a bit. A foundation. It can really be great when a person is able to find ANYTHING to help them do that- whether meds or otherwise.

I still have problems. I do, ones that I will need to continue to work on- but it feels so much more possible now. So I can say- meds helped me- I at least really feel that I can say that.

 

[citizen cane]

I can't believe you're telling me nothing in life is accurate one hundred percent of the time, like I don't know that or expect it to be. This is not an issue of accuracy. It's an issue of abuse. But I guess some people just have to fall through the cracks.

In your case, yes, that was abuse. But abuse isn't the prescribed treatment for anyone, anywhere, ever. But you seem to link abuse and misdiagnosis and not having 100% accurate solutions into one issue, and you know this is not the case. Clearly anyone in your situation has the right to feel neglected and violated, but that still does not explain lumping all of these issues into one ball of problems for the majority of people, nor for the sake of problem solving or research.

 

[magpie]

In your case, yes, that was abuse. But abuse isn't the prescribed treatment for anyone, anywhere, ever. But you seem to link abuse and misdiagnosis and not having 100% accurate solutions into one issue, and you know this is not the case. Clearly anyone in your situation has the right to feel neglected and violated, but that still does not explain lumping all of these issues into one ball of problems for the majority of people, nor for the sake of problem solving or research.

If you think that seclusion and forced medication isn't common practice, you're delusional. It is all linked. Misdiagnosis can lead to abuse. Misdiagnosis can be abusive when it ends up causing people to receive incorrect treatment. When you misdiagnosis someone and treat them based off a misdiagnosis, it's called malpractice.

Abuse is the prescribed treatment in psych wards. It's seen as perfectly acceptable, necessary, and good to do the things that were done to me. Including the assualt, since it happened because I broke a rule. And breaking rules is seen as dangerous and crazy behaviour. Not agreeing is seen as crazy and dangerous behaviour. Contesting your diagnosis is seen as further proof that you're sick.

How do you get someone to do as they're told in a psych ward? When do you think it is okay to use force? I'm sure you would if you thought it was justified and that's the problem. I saw a kid assaulted for breaking a nurse's glasses. Do you think that was an appropriate response? The kid did break glasses after all. But if your own child broke glasses and you punished them in that way, it would be considered child abuse. Not if the kid is crazy though, then it's considered a good idea.

If you think abuse isn't the prescribed treatment for anyone, anywhere, ever, then you are sheltered and, I'll say it again, delusional. Or you refuse to acknowledge reality, which seems to be a trend.