Featured Blogs

I grew up in an environment that taught me my worth as a person was directly tied to my grades, my athletic performance, my list of extra-curricular activities, and my SAT scores. That if I wasn’t the best, I was the worst. That if I wasn’t perfect, I was a failure. At thirteen and in all my psychiatrized years to follow, I never had the chance to step back and process what this all meant, and whether these were values I wanted to hold onto, and I continued through high school and on to Harvard in this existential limbo, simply because I saw no other way.

I had a soul-redemptive heart-to-heart reunion with a woman I had known from a distance but whom now (after our hours long coeur-a-coeur/heart-to-heart) I consider a close friend. I shared with her some very exciting and some challenging circumstances I have been experiencing of late. After I shared and shed a few tears she told me a story from her life that also poses, like my story, an invitation for profound change in our lives.

It seems almost every week now that we hear of a mass murder/shooting in the media. By now the pattern is too familiar to be as frightening as it once was. The response has also become reflexive: Guns should be made less available, especially to people with mental illnesses, and potentially dangerous people should be treated for their mental illnesses − involuntarily if necessary − so they can live safely in our community. Yet, nothing much changes, outraging the next set of victim’s families and communities.

It is hard to believe that a year has gone past since I posted Playing the Odds: Antidepressant Withdrawal and the Problem of Informed Consent. The feedback I received underscored the more controversial aspects of SSRI toxicity.  Common themes concerned the abrupt onset of new symptoms 3 to 12 months after stopping the drug, reinstatement of the drug failing to help withdrawal related symptoms, the possibility that withdrawal-related symptoms can persist indefinitely and concerns about using benzodiazepines to help with tardive akathisia.

On July 17, I wrote a post on the use of neuroleptic drugs as chemical restraints in nursing homes.  The article generated some comments, one of which touched on some very fundamental issues which, in my view, warrant further discussion. The comment read as follows: "All drugs can be dangerous toxic chemicals when not used appropriately. While many valid points are made in this article, it’s very one-sided and could be considered biased in that it’s written by a psychologist. I’ve seen many patients and families benefit from their use."

Before Michael Pollan gained well-deserved respect and influence authoring five bestselling books about food, he got my attention in the late 1990s writing about American illegal-legal psychotropic drug hypocrisy. Then he stopped writing about it. If he had continued his assault on American drug hypocrisy, he likely would have been attacked by many psychiatric drug users, mistaking his confronting this hypocrisy as challenging their decision to choose psychiatric drugs.

The kinds of experiences we call psychotic are often incredibly scary: people feel they are being persecuted by strange forces, or that their brains have been invaded by demons or riddled with implants from the CIA . . . the list of possible fears is endless, and often horrifying. While standard mental health approaches counter many of these fears, they often create new fears of a different variety.   Wouldn’t it be helpful if professionals were trained in an approach that could help people shift away from both dangerous psychotic ways of thinking and also away from the sometimes equally terrifying explanations which emphasize pathology?

Even as we have access to more and more information linking that which gets labeled mental illness to trauma — treatment that exacerbates the trauma response continues to gain legal traction all over the country. This, of course, leads to the epidemic of harm and iatrogenic illness we’re watching happen. (See: Anatomy of an Epidemic.)

It is rare to get involved in a dialogue over psychiatry without sooner or later someone defending the use of such “treatments” as ECT “as long as they are consented to,” with the term “informed consent” periodically employed. Herein lies the context for this piece. The issue that I want to probe, to be clear, is not whether force should be used—for of course it shouldn’t—but the thorny issue of consent itself—what exactly constitutes consent and what other issues besides consent are critical to factor in when considering what it is and is not legitimate for a “medical” professional to offer.

Many people who have never been severely depressed might ask, “Why would anybody want to kill themselves?” After all, taking one’s life goes directly against the survival instinct that nature has programmed us with. For example, if you were walking across the street and saw a car coming towards you − your first instinct would be to jump out of its path. Yet, when the brain becomes overwhelmed with chronic, intense pain that seems to have no end, then suicide becomes not only a rational choice, but a compelling option. After all, if you are faced with the prospect of being in eternal hell, then taking your own life seems like an act of self-love, not an act of self-detruction.

When I became a case manager at a community mental health agency in Cincinnati, Ohio, I had a bachelor’s degree in journalism, 11 months of experience working in the advertising world, and 10 months of serving with AmeriCorps under my belt. I was not the most qualified person for the position, but I was hungry for experience in the mental health field, and I was determined to be good at the job. My supervisor said he hired me because he knew I had the interpersonal skills to do the work, and that he could teach me the rest. Two of the main axioms I learned as a case manager were that mental illnesses are due to chemical imbalances, and psychotropic medications are the solution. As a result, I spent an abundance of energy negotiating with my clients to take their meds or try new ones that the pharma reps encouraged us to promote.

There's an interesting article in the July-August 2014 issue of the AARP Bulletin.  It's called Drug Abuse: Antipsychotics in Nursing Homes, and was written by Jan Goodwin.  AARP is the American Association of Retired Persons.   Jan Goodwin is an investigative journalist whose career, according to Wikipedia, ". . . has been committed to focusing attention on social justice and human rights…" The article is essentially a condemnation of the widespread and long-standing practice of using neuroleptic drugs to suppress "difficult" behavior in nursing home residents.

In Part 1 of this blog I attempted to summarize and define the evolution of psychiatry into its present day incarnation of Biological Psychiatry. In Part 2, I focused on analyzing the anatomy of its enormous power and control within our present day society. Given the difficult circumstances we now face in confronting such powerful institutions, I still believe there are many opportunities to expand our struggle and grow our movement. History has taught us that “where there is oppression there will always be resistance.” With each person and family abused by this system, combined with every lie the system tells us, there is a constant regeneration of favorable conditions to expose them and gather allies.

In 2000 when I gave a lecture on "Psychopharmacology and the Government of the Self" at the invitation of the University of Toronto, I ran into a problem.  In the public domain our shared difficulties were because of this lecture.  In fact, the difficulties stemmed from a member of the Establishment – Charlie Nemeroff – who put the frighteners on the U of T about hiring Healy. 'The psychopharmacology establishment in the face of adverse effects from drugs' is the same as 'the medical establishment in the face of treatment-related adverse effects' is the same as 'the British establishment in the face of allegations of paedophilia and child abuse' is the same as 'the Vatican in the face of allegations of abuse.' It’s about power.  We have it – you don’t.  Get lost.

I am not comfortable with an all-or-nothing insanity defense that is both legally and socially stigmatizing because it sets the person apart as someone who is legally determined to be incapable of being treated as a moral agent. This stigma spills over onto all people who are psychiatrized, and it is part of the conception of madness that also ends up serving as a justification for civil commitment, since we are perceived (incorrectly) as outside the reach of ordinary law.

In a recently released article I provided an overview of antipsychiatry, teasing out its features and both its overlaps with and differences from related movements and constituencies (Burstow, 2014). Necessarily, the commitment to psychiatry abolition emerged as definitional as well as pivotal. In this article, I will be attempting to shed further light by clarifying and probing a particular model of psychiatry abolition. The question being addressed here is: Okay, so you know what you want—but just how do you go about figuring out what to do? A question that has been plaguing the movement for some time.

Service users and survivors who work in a behavioral health settings are faced with important questions about whether or not to share their lived experience and when. We may ask ourselves: Am I ready? What about the risks and politics of disclosure? How do I address an associated expectation or barrier, or deal with the possibility of discrimination? What kind of support is available to me in the process? I’m pleased to announce Sharing Experience Lived Firsthand (SELF).

The recent July 9th Ct. Mirror article, Children Stuck in Crisis, accomplishes the intended purpose of deceptively convincing the people of Connecticut that there’s a severe mental health services crisis in the state. On the surface, the article’s author provides a compelling scenario of the state’s youth failing to get the needed mental health care and forced to rely on emergency room services. The problem with the presentation is the failure to address a key piece of information in the reported mental-health-crisis-puzzle – the increased psychiatric drugging of Connecticut’s children.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has become the province of geneticists, neuropsychologists, and physicians. The prevailing view is that ADHD behaviors are caused by a neurobiological delay and that treatment must include medication and stringent management. While this general attitude may continue to prosper, there is increasing concern that we are proposing the existence of a medical problem when there are no biological markers or dysfunctions that reliably correspond with the behavioral criteria. It is vital that we more closely examine traditional beliefs about ADHD and review the shortcomings of commonly used treatments.

My search for peace of mind has taken me from giving up much control of my well-being to bio-psychiatry, to exploring unhealthy behaviors, to ultimately finding peace amidst fellow seekers in the holistic healing world. I found peace on my yoga mat, by eating healthy food, by quieting my mind through meditation, and by surrounding myself with people that nourish my soul. My wife, Carrie, has been by my side as we’ve collaboratively explored ways to enrich our lives and optimize our human experience. Recently, our search has intensified. My beautiful wife was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer.

We are, more and more, as individuals with “mental health diagnoses,” living in a reality of senselessness, absurdity and and arbitrary outcomes. While I often believe that our movement simply calls itself a movement, but does not really move at all, it is in fact possible today to say that we are part of a post-Justina movement. The attention to her case highlights both the senselessness and the absurdity, but perhaps not the arbitrary nature of how the system functions for those it impacts.

Do you know the locations of all the best bathrooms? Do you often take a seat near the exit, just in case? Do you excuse yourself often to use the bathroom? Do you ever skip meals, or avoid certain foods, to avoid multiple bathroom trips? Do you know the locations of all the best bathrooms? Do you often take a seat near the exit, just in case? Do you excuse yourself often to use the bathroom? Do you ever skip meals, or avoid certain foods, to avoid multiple bathroom trips? Those are questions from the Crohn’s Workaround Quiz, developed by AbbVie to promote its blockbuster biologic drug, Humira, for Crohn’s Disease.  I took the quiz online, and passed with flying colors.

On June 18, the British Medical Journal published an article by Christine Lu, et al., titled Changes in antidepressant use by young people and suicidal behavior after FDA warnings and media coverage: quasi-experimental study. < /em>Here's the conclusion paragraph from the abstract: "Safety warnings about antidepressants and widespread media coverage decreased antidepressant use, and there were simultaneous increases in suicide attempts among young people. It is essential to monitor and reduce possible unintended consequences of FDA warnings and media reporting." Note the slightly rebuking tone directed against the FDA and the media.