Why We Should Ban Psychiatry

[Lark]

Thanks to the visionary leader's groundbreaking work of 1950 (and subsequent crusade exposing the evils of psychiatry) we can all be on our way to climbing the Bridge to Total Freedom.

If you are easily conned by snake oil sales men, you know the conspiracy theory that Hubbard and a couple of other famous sci fi authors, including the author of Dune, all got together and laid a bet on who could create a cult following the fastest, Hubbard just skipped the literary prop and went straight for a home brew religion, ie dianetics and scientology

 

[magpie]

I think it's best that I don't get involved in this. I'm only going to say that the alternative to lack of informed consent is informed consent. And the alternative to psychosurgery is not doing psychosurgery, which I think everyone could get on board with.

I'm not going to come up with something different so that people can weigh it and dismiss it in order to rationalize what's already done as better or more "realistic." I'm sure if people thought about it they would easily come up with alternatives. It's not my job to do that for you, especially because asking comes from a place of challenge and adherence toward the status quo rather than a genuine interest or will to make change.

Don't quote this please, just think on it.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I think it's best that I don't get involved in this. I'm only going to say that the alternative to lack of informed consent is informed consent. And the alternative to psychosurgery is not doing psychosurgery, which I think everyone could get on board with.

I'm not going to come up with something different so that people can weigh it and dismiss it in order to rationalize what's already done as better or more "realistic." I'm sure if people thought about it they would easily come up with alternatives. It's not my job to do that for you, especially because asking comes from a place of challenge and adherence toward the status quo rather than a genuine interest or will to make change.

Don't quote this please, just think on it.

I can respect this and even agree with aspects of it but you have an assumption that challenging an idea must equate with rejection of an idea. Not so.

This is an issue, like yourself, is personal to me as well. I have been hospitalized. I have been on psycho-tropic medications.

I take this subject seriously. Which is why I prefer to scrutinize criticisms as well as suggestions. They have to have validity.

The way this particular argument was phrased was just bad all the way around. Too broad.

You want to talk about informed consent? Cool. Let's discuss that. Let's see where improvments and blind spots are.

I don't like the fact psychiatric drugs are used without conjunctive counseling for children in family courts. Where help isn't the main focus - minimizing liability is.

What can be done about that?

These are all valid concerns and great talking points that each could be a thread of their own.

That is how you start a dialogue. Not a blanket rejection of an entire field. I mean, you could but you can't blame getting a blanket response to it, either.

The argument has to be more specific.

 

[Ivy]

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Psychiatry, when practiced compassionately, saves lives. It has saved mine, but I entered into treatment for my depression willingly (enthusiastically, even). Yes, there are problems with the current system, and it can be gravely misused. Predatory doctors can find a place to safely practice sadism in psychiatry, but that's not a problem that is limited to psychiatry. However, psychiatric patients are among the most vulnerable so there should probably be a lot more oversight/accountability built into the system. But I don't think it would serve anyone to tear the system down entirely.

 

[magpie]

I can respect this and even agree with aspects of it but you have an assumption that challenging an idea must equate with rejection of an idea. Not so.

This is an issue, like yourself, is personal to me as well. I have been hospitalized. I have been on psycho-tropic medications.

I take this subject seriously. Which is why I prefer to scrutinize criticisms as well as suggestions. They have to have validity.

The way this particular argument was phrased was just bad all the way around. Too broad.

You want to talk about informed consent? Cool. Let's discuss that. Let's see where improvments and blind spots are.

I don't like the fact psychiatric drugs are used without conjunctive counseling for children in family courts. Where help isn't the main focus - minimizing liability is.

What can be done about that?

These are all valid concerns and great talking points that each could be a thread of their own.

That is how you start a dialogue. Not a blanket rejection of an entire field. I mean, you could but you can't blame getting a blanket response to it, either.

The argument has to be more specific.

I don't think I blanket rejected the entire field. I'm not sure where you're seeing that. Unless you think the entire field is abusive, which I didn't say and would've been your inference of my first post.

 

[Ivy]

I don't think I blanket rejected the entire field. I'm not sure where you're seeing that. Unless you think the entire field is abusive, which I didn't say and would've been your inference of my first post.

It did sort of read that way to me- since the OP is calling for the abolishment of psychiatry (which would be a blanket rejection of the field), your post in response to captain curmudgeon's questioning of the OP seemed like defending the OP. I knew from previous conversations that probably wasn't what you were going for, but if we hadn't had those previous conversations, I probably would have made the same assumptions.

 

[magpie]

It did sort of read that way to me- since the OP is calling for the abolishment of psychiatry (which would be a blanket rejection of the field), your post in response to captain curmudgeon's questioning of the OP seemed like defending the OP. I knew from previous conversations that probably wasn't what you were going for, but if we hadn't had those previous conversations, I probably would have made the same assumptions.

I do think psychiatry is a psuedo-science and I think it needs to be completely reworked. I don't think it should be banned for people who want it because that would remove the ability to make a decision. But as it is, there's already a large amount of coercion and violation of ethics. So something needs to be changed to make that not happen.

I don't like talking about changes on this site because I feel like I'm being scrutinized and it feels like pushing a boulder up hill to get most people to admit that there needs to be any change at all. I really do tend to regret getting involved in these posts and I think everyone else regrets my involvement as well. I think I should stick to having real life conversations or conversations in my blog about this.

I realize that addressing this topic makes me feel like I'm in the psych ward again and am trying to get people to listen to me and not ignore what I need or want, but I'm only being ignored or overpowered. I think for this reason I shouldn't join discussions. Even sharing my experiences in these discussions gets them dismissed as "not very common," like I don't matter because it's just me.

This is honestly how I feel about things.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Psychiatry, when practiced compassionately, saves lives. It has saved mine, but I entered into treatment for my depression willingly (enthusiastically, even). Yes, there are problems with the current system, and it can be gravely misused. Predatory doctors can find a place to safely practice sadism in psychiatry, but that's not a problem that is limited to psychiatry. However, psychiatric patients are among the most vulnerable so there should probably be a lot more oversight/accountability built into the system. But I don't think it would serve anyone to tear the system down entirely.

Hmmm, I would imagine there is some sort of peer-review process done at certain intervals? All other medical fields get individuals audited regularly.

 

[Mole]

Only a short time ago we saw the insane as criminal and locked them up in prisons.

Then we had an epistemological change and instead of seeing the insane as criminals we saw them as mentally ill. So instead of the criminal model we adopted the medical model, and we gave responsibility of the insane to medical doctors called psychiatrists.

And then we had a dangerous epiphany. We thought we could free the insane from insane asylums by abolishing the asylums and sending the insane out into the community, where they would receive community care, only we failed to fund community care, and the insane ended up on our streets self medicating with nicotine, alcohol, and illegal drugs.

So first the insane were put in the hands of prison guards, then into the hands of doctors in asylums, and now into the hands of illegal drug dealers in the street.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Only a short time ago we saw the insane as criminal and locked them up in prisons.

Then we had an epistemological change and instead of seeing the insane as criminals we saw them as mentally ill. So instead of the criminal model we adopted the medical model, and we gave responsibility of the insane to medical doctors called psychiatrists.

And then we had a dangerous epiphany. We thought we could free the insane from insane asylums by abolishing the asylums and sending the insane out into the community, where they would receive community care, only we failed to fund community care, and the insane ended up on our streets self medicating with nicotine, alcohol, and illegal drugs.

So first the insane were put in the hands of prison guards, then into the hands of doctors in asylums, and now into the hands of illegal drug dealers in the street.

So, we do what then?

 

[Mole]

So, we do what then?

Surely it is obvious. We can't lock the insane up in prison, and we can no longer lock the insane in asylums, and we can't leave them on the streets at the mercy of drug predators. It is obvious we need to fund community care. This would be very expensive.

But the insane themselves have no political clout, and the sane still despise the insane. There are myths that the insane are to blame for their insanity, or that they are deliberately anti-social, or that they are possessed by demons. In a competitive society, the insane are seen as losers and of no account.

But the bottom line is that we don't want to pay for the care of the insane, so we put them out on the street like the trash.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Surely it is obvious. We can't lock the insane up in prison, and we can no longer lock the insane in asylums, and we can't leave them on the streets at the mercy of drug predators. It is obvious we need to fund community care. This would be very expensive.

But the insane themselves have no political clout, and the sane still despise the insane. There are myths that the insane are to blame for their insanity, or that they are deliberately anti-social, or that they are possessed by demons. In a competitive society, the insane are seen as losers and of no account.

But the bottom line is that we don't want to pay for the care of the insane, so we put them out on the street like the trash.

What's "community care" in the context you are using it? Seems like people would abuse others funding their lives, but I suppose some would say that only the insane would want to.

 

[Mole]

What's "community care" in the context you are using it? Seems like people would abuse others funding their lives, but I suppose some would say that only the insane would want to.

We already fund those who are non compos mentis such as infants, children, and teenagers.

And in Australia we already have a very well funded National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), click on Homepage | National Disability Insurance Scheme .

So all we need is well funded community centres for the insane to provide support for their carers in their families, in supported accommodation, and in social groups. This would be very expensive, and would change our hard hearts.

 

[Jeremy8419]

We already fund those who are non compos mentis such as infants, children, and teenagers.

And in Australia we already have a very well funded National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), click on Homepage | National Disability Insurance Scheme .

So all we need is well funded community centres for the insane to provide support for their carers in their families, in supported accommodation, and in social groups. This would be very expensive, and would change our hard hearts.

Ah, well, I am a fan of community centers.

 

[Mole]

Ah, well, I am a fan of community centers.

I think you are in for a surprise as community centres serving the insane would be quite different from the community centres you are used to. They would be well funded with well trained staff, and would change our view of the insane.

An example of a community centre for the insane is Kingsley Hall, London, UK, click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsley_Hall

And just as a personal aside: I judge the character of my friends against their attitude to Kingsley Hall.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I think you are in for a surprise as community centres serving the insane would be quite different from the community centres you are used to. They would be well funded with well trained staff, and would change our view of the insane.

An example of a community centre for the insane is Kingsley Hall, London, UK, click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsley_Hall

And just as a personal aside: I judge the character of my friends against their attitude to Kingsley Hall.

Well, I don't go to Community Centers, as outside of going with friends or passing by, I was generally fairly blessed with my life situations. It's the mindset behind them that I support and think is good. Never heard of ones for the insane, though. The regular ones are typically to give people a method to prevent such things. I'll read up on the links you provided.

 

[Tellenbach]

I prefer a biochemical approach to treating mental illness. Measure a bunch of brain chemicals; try to identify any imbalances. If imbalances are found (e.g. in schizophrenia patients, lots of peroxides are found), try to fix that imbalance. See if the patient improves.

This approach has worked in treating mental retardation caused by PKU (phenylketonuria).

I've recently read (last night) that the Lovaas treatment technique of autism called 'applied behavior analysis' does improve the lives of autistic children; this means that at least some psychiatric approaches work.

 

[citizen cane]

No. It is literally asking:

If this isn't a proper way to treat someone (by OP's and your admission) what are your ideas? Substitutions? Improvements?

Yes, but the OP consistently and consciously engages in biased black-and-white thinking on the subject at hand.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I prefer a biochemical approach to treating mental illness. Measure a bunch of brain chemicals; try to identify any imbalances. If imbalances are found (e.g. in schizophrenia patients, lots of peroxides are found), try to fix that imbalance. See if the patient improves.

This approach has worked in treating mental retardation caused by PKU (phenylketonuria).

I've recently read (last night) that the Lovaas treatment technique of autism called 'applied behavior analysis' does improve the lives of autistic children; this means that at least some psychiatric approaches work.

Haven't heard of the peroxides before. I read before about hydrogen peroxide being a signaler for white blood cells, and asthma having high white blood cell count in the lungs.

Link for the autism stuff, please?

 

[Bush]

Gonna need a source for all the brain damage stuff

Actually, I'll need a source for everything about lying, deceit, and nonspecific harms

I'm on board with most of everything else