Why We Should Ban Psychiatry

[Olm the Water King]

Why We Should Ban Psychiatry - Discussion on Topix

Why We Should Ban Psychiatry

1. Because psychiatrists frequently cause harm, permanent disabilities, death - death of the body-mind-spirit.
2. Because psychiatrists frequently violate the Hippocratic Oath which orders all physicians "First Do No Harm."
3. Because psychiatrists patronize and disempower people, especially their patients.
4. Because psychiatry is not a medical science.
5. Because psychiatry is quackery, a pseudo-science which lacks independent diagnostic tests,testable hypotheses, and cures for "schizophrenia" and all other types of alleged "mental illness" or "mental disorder".
6. Because psychiatrists cannot accurately and reliably predict dangerousness, violence or any other type of human behaviour, yet make such claims as "expert witnesses", and with the media promote the "dangerous mental patient" myth/stereotype.
7. Because psychiatrists
have caused a worldwide epidemic of brain damage by promoting and prescribing brain-disabling treatments such as the neuroleptics, antidepressants, electroconvulsive brainwashing (electroshock), and psychosurgery lobotomy).
8. Because psychiatrists manufacture hundreds of "mental disorders" classified in its bible called "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (a modern witch-hunting manual); such "mental disorders" and "symptoms" are in fact negative, class-and-culturally-biased moral judgments for dissident ways of coping with personal problems and alternative ways of perceiving, interpreting or being in the world.
9. Because psychiatrists, blinded by their medical model bias, fraudulently pathologize and label people's serious life or existential crises as "symptoms" of "mental illness" or "mental disorder" such as "schizophrenia", "bipolar affective disorder", and "personality disorder".
10. Because psychiatrists compound this fraud by falsely claiming, without scientific proof, that these "mental disorders" are caused by a "biochemical imbalance" in the brain, genetic factors or "genetic predispositions", despite the fact that there are no genetic factors in "mental illness".
11. Because psychiatrists frequently misinform their patients, families and the public by claiming that brain-disabling procedures such as the neurotoxins (e.g.,"antipsychotic medication" and "antidepressasnts"), electroconvulsive brainwashing (electroconvulsive therapy/"ECT"), psychosurgery (lobotomy) and other behaviour modification-mind control procedures are "safe, effective and lifesaving". The exact opposite is tragically true.
12. Because psychiatrists routinely deceive or lie to patients, prisoners, their families, and public.
13. Because psychiatrists routinely and willfully violate the medical-ethical principle of "informed consent" by misinforming or not informing their patients about the numerous toxic, disabling and frequently permanent effects of the neuroleptics such as memory loss, tardive dyskinesia, tardive psychosis, parkinsonism, dementia (all signs of brain damage), and death.
14. Because psychiatrists routinely threaten, intimidate or coerce many patients - particularly women, children, the elderly, and prisoners - into consenting to health-threatening/brain-damag ing "treatment" such as the antidepressants, neuroleptics, electroconvulsive brainwashing, and hi-risk experiments.
15. Because psychiatrists frequently fail to fully inform psychiatric inmates and prisoners about existing safe and humane, non-medical alternatives in the community such as survivor-controlled crisis centres, dropins, self-help or advocacy groups, diet, massage, wholistic medicine, affordable supportive housing, and jobs.
...

 

[Jeremy8419]

Oh. This is because psychiatry isn't meant for the patients. It's meant for those around the patient. Think of it like psychological jail.

 

[Lark]

I think there's a lot of other things that should be banned (successfully) first.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I think there's a lot of other things that should be banned (successfully) first.

Really, it's just a matter of technology and innovation. Take, for example, the abuse of the welfare and child support systems in the U.S.A. Most places have gone from food stamps to food debit cards, which may be linked to identity, so the verification of using the welfare for appropriate uses increases in efficiency, whereas the ability to abuse the welfare by exchanging stamps or foods for cash to be used on luxuries decreases in efficiency. People using cash welfare to abusive ends is similar; drug testing becomes more efficient, so the means of abusing the welfare for drugs becomes less efficient. Healthcare issues? Well, I, personally, have been wondering how long it will take until they develop a singular database of health history tied to my basic government identification, so that it doesn't take half a dozen people for record-keeping at an office that houses a single doctor lol

 

[citizen cane]

I'll bite. So how should the mentally ill seek treatment and be treated instead?

 

[magpie]

I'll bite. So how should the mentally ill seek treatment and be treated instead?

This is always such a strange question. It's literally saying "If we shouldn't abuse people, then I literally can't think of another way to treat someone!"

 

[á´…eparted]

This is always such a strange question. It's literally saying "If we shouldn't abuse people, then I literally can't think of another way to treat someone!"

Then what alternatives do you have in mind?

 

[Jeremy8419]

I'll bite. So how should the mentally ill seek treatment and be treated instead?

They don't. They keep going to psychiatrists until a proper solution is achieved.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

The thread topic is ignorant.

This is how I know: calling for a widespread ban on an entire field is ignorant because it ignores positive impacts made and throws them out. Dismissing the whole.

If OP would come up with alternative and viable (hey that last word is important) changes to known procedures then that would favor the OP's arguments and open up a wider dialogue.

Then we could test reasonableness and viability of suggested changes.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

This is always such a strange question. It's literally saying "If we shouldn't abuse people, then I literally can't think of another way to treat someone!"

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?

 

[á´…eparted]

They don't. They keep going to psychiatrists until a proper solution is achieved.

Wait, are you saying mentally ill patients shouldn't seek treatment? Or are you saying they should simply shop around until they find a proper fitting psychiatrist and treatment. The latter is fine, the former is not.

The thread topic is ignorant.

This is how I know: calling for a widespread ban on an entire field is ignorant because it ignores positive impacts made and throws them out. Dismissing the whole.

If OP would come up with alternative and viable (hey that last word is important) changes to known procedures then that would favor the OP's arguments and open up a wider dialogue.

Then we could test reasonableness and viability of suggested changes.

Not to mention, the OP is a link to a forum posts with no citations either.

 

[SD45T-2]

Citizen Arcane

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.

 

[Lark]

Really, it's just a matter of technology and innovation. Take, for example, the abuse of the welfare and child support systems in the U.S.A. Most places have gone from food stamps to food debit cards, which may be linked to identity, so the verification of using the welfare for appropriate uses increases in efficiency, whereas the ability to abuse the welfare by exchanging stamps or foods for cash to be used on luxuries decreases in efficiency. People using cash welfare to abusive ends is similar; drug testing becomes more efficient, so the means of abusing the welfare for drugs becomes less efficient. Healthcare issues? Well, I, personally, have been wondering how long it will take until they develop a singular database of health history tied to my basic government identification, so that it doesn't take half a dozen people for record-keeping at an office that houses a single doctor lol

Dont really see how that relates to what I posted but alright, some of what you're talking about is to do with scarcity, no one worries a great deal about individuals abusing, for instance, water, if someone runs that tap all day long no one is going to be any the wiser or suffer in any way as a consequence, but no one generally does that. There's been work done to create scarcity mindsets about water in countries they want to get set for paying for household water supplies, like ROI but its not worked, all the the "green consciousness" or "eco-wash" of water metering has been, rightly, dismissed as bullshit commercialisation attempts.

Consider the amount of millionaire drug addicts there are, no one really cares what they do with their money or their lives, I think that stressing about poor peoples spending is a reflection of unfortunate, lousy scarcity mindsets, most economies could create basic incomes, for the entire population, whether they work or not, it would actually help with the circulation of money in the economy and flexibility of employment and decline of mass employment but no one's generally will to contemplate it.

Information systems should eventually surpass information duplication but biometric IDs and big data is always going to have moral hazards involved too. Big brother or big sales.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Dont really see how that relates to what I posted but alright, some of what you're talking about is to do with scarcity, no one worries a great deal about individuals abusing, for instance, water, if someone runs that tap all day long no one is going to be any the wiser or suffer in any way as a consequence, but no one generally does that. There's been work done to create scarcity mindsets about water in countries they want to get set for paying for household water supplies, like ROI but its not worked, all the the "green consciousness" or "eco-wash" of water metering has been, rightly, dismissed as bullshit commercialisation attempts.

Consider the amount of millionaire drug addicts there are, no one really cares what they do with their money or their lives, I think that stressing about poor peoples spending is a reflection of unfortunate, lousy scarcity mindsets, most economies could create basic incomes, for the entire population, whether they work or not, it would actually help with the circulation of money in the economy and flexibility of employment and decline of mass employment but no one's generally will to contemplate it.

Information systems should eventually surpass information duplication but biometric IDs and big data is always going to have moral hazards involved too. Big brother or big sales.

Oh, sorry, lol. What I was saying is that I'm in favor of capital goods that make it easier to solve social problems as a whole in the long run, then spending more money on consumable goods. Been a while since Economics lol. I get "lost in translation" sometimes lol

 

[Jeremy8419]

Wait, are you saying mentally ill patients shouldn't seek treatment? Or are you saying they should simply shop around until they find a proper fitting psychiatrist and treatment. The latter is fine, the former is not.




Not to mention, the OP is a link to a forum posts with no citations either.

Wasn't referring to either, honestly. I was referring to the fact that medication sales are what funds medical research. Today's medicine is tomorrow's vaccine. Explicitly, and figuratively.

 

[á´…eparted]

Wasn't referring to either, honestly. I was referring to the fact that medication sales are what funds medical research. Today's medicine is tomorrow's vaccine. Explicitly, and figuratively.

That's actually a good thing then, considering vaccines have one of the highest success rates and rigorous saftey profiles of any medical device.

That's a long term goal though. We won't see that for decades as there needs to be a lot more research completed on the human brain first.

 

[miss fortune]

I've always thought that it's pointless to say that you want to get rid of an existing structure without having a solution to fill the vacuum that it would leave

still want to know who's going to treat those with mental health problems if you ban psychiatry... a GP isn't properly trained for it and a psychologist can only prescribe meds in 3 states, I think, so you'd just be creating more of a run around which would be more expensive in both money and time for the patient

 

[Lark]

Oh, sorry, lol. What I was saying is that I'm in favor of capital goods that make it easier to solve social problems as a whole in the long run, then spending more money on consumable goods. Been a while since Economics lol. I get "lost in translation" sometimes lol

You know this is a thread on banning psychiatry?

I think what you just posted, or what you posted before that, has got to be an archetypical derail.

If you want to discuss those things why wouldnt you post a thread on that topic.

 

[Lark]

I've always thought that it's pointless to say that you want to get rid of an existing structure without having a solution to fill the vacuum that it would leave

still want to know who's going to treat those with mental health problems if you ban psychiatry... a GP isn't properly trained for it and a psychologist can only prescribe meds in 3 states, I think, so you'd just be creating more of a run around which would be more expensive in both money and time for the patient

I'm inclined to agree.

Anti-psychiatry is very dated, very, very dated, most of what is good within that particular bygone movement has been integrated into good psychiatric training, or that of the allied professions, such as anti-oppressive practices in social work or psychological training.

I'll be honest that what remains of an anti-psychiatry movement, and I may even argue the original movement itself, is a gross exaggeration of authority issues within patient-doctor relationships, you dont see anyone saying they want to ban plumbing or electricians but when you think about it the same power differentials, as a consequence of knowledge and skills bases, exists.

 

[Jeremy8419]

You know this is a thread on banning psychiatry?

I think what you just posted, or what you posted before that, has got to be an archetypical derail.

If you want to discuss those things why wouldnt you post a thread on that topic.

Because psychology has capital goods available as well. As Hard mentioned above, brain imagining is one such thing. Education is another. OP said F Psychology. You said, other things should be banned first. Now I am saying we shouldn't waste money on consumer goods, after saying a few posts ago that this wasteful spending on medication, which is a consumer good, is what funds the capital goods for such. So, I'm wondering what your stance is on how to best moderate expenditures on psychology issues.