Schizophrenia Becomes Psychosis Susceptibility Syndrome

Honestly, I don’t think that this name change will do much to decrease stigma. Being seen as having “propensity to psychosis” will actually make things worse. People will constantly second guess whether any statement or action made by the person who has “propensity to psychosis” will be “psychotic”. So, the best solution is to ban all psychiatric labeling, end of the story.

We have the criminal justice system to deal with those who misbehave, there shouldn’t be a parallel, oppressive system run by psychiatrists to justify they salaries and living.

I don’t understand why the desire to have a name and a syndrome. It’s misleading I think to say that something is a symptom of such a syndrome, as if the named syndrome were a cause. In reality any of the psychiatric diagnoses amounts to giving a name to a (somewhat arbitrary) set of experiences that trouble a person or those around them.

Regarding the “stigma” attached to a label: in my experience the problem was that the label was an excuse to disregard my own self-narrative and to designate psychiatric abuse as a beneficial therapy, thus again denying my self narrative. It is only to the extent I have accepted the abuse as somehow deserved, that I experienced “stigma.”

Also, I am not sure where you get the information on Japan, but colleagues in the user/survivor movement in Japan still report that large numbers of people are incarcerated in psychiatric institutions. See http://www.jngmdp.org/e/.

Thanks for writing here, and I don’t mean to discourage people from whatever they think will make things better. But as someone who was labeled with schizophrenia and wonders what it was really intended to say about me, I don’t agree with the view put forth here that a “psychosis susceptibility syndrome” makes any more sense.

I prefer the term psycho puppets.

Psychosis Susceptibility Syndrome would be a good name for the long term effects of many of the drugs currently used for psychosis.

I read this with interest. I strongly agree that a name change would be beneficial. However, I notice that the suggested new label of PSS makes no mention of the potential for recovery. I know that I am not the only person labelled with schizophrenia to have made a full recovery – most of the others, very sensibly, stay quiet about the fact that they were ever diagnosed. I think it would really help people suffering from mental health problems to know that, whatever label they are given, there is always the potential for a full recovery. Until this fact is acknowledged, these diagnoses will always be damaging to the individual and medications will continue to be overused. I understand that they may be useful for some, in the short term, if they are not forcibly administered, but I think far too many people are left languishing on anti-psychotic medication for life – life that is often severely curtailed as a result of these drugs.

This would be an even more precise (and thus maybe then even more legally justifiable!) way for pharma, doctors, the media, and courts (as well as employers, risk managers/actuaries, and others prone to discriminate) to obscure the KNOWN psychosis risks of psych meds. But we can argue that their “psychosis” is “latent”–whew! Why not just rename schizophrenia as “ticking time bomb,” and bipolar disorders as “time bomb 1/2,” and depression as “time bomb whenever I get the energy” syndromes– especially if the diagnosees are taking or withdrawing from the psychiatric drugs that created/exacerbated them. (But it doesn’t matter to the aforementioned which came first, the psychosis or the drugs, because, well, the nuts wouldn’t be on the drugs if they weren’t nuts to begin with). Wow. Forward march. Let’s think outside the box even more and mandate that the diagnosees wear these labels on t-shirts — as a way to proclaim destigmatization, of course . Seriously, what can I do to help make sure this change doesn’t occur? Is it too late? Suddenly “schizophrenia” doesn’t sound so bad.

I am a member of Michael van Oostende’s forum. There are many patients who think the name change will help them, but typically there are also many patients who are “in cahoots” with psychiatry and do not really question its helpfulness. Personally, I doubt the change will have any effect, and although some forum members have started using PSS, it confuses me every time and I don’t think many people will [i]naturally[/i] migrate to the new name. I personally do not care much, and so I just use what I see fit – which is the old name. Only people who [i]care[/i] use the new name. I think this proves that there is not really a demand for it. People would flock to the new name if it was really an improvement. Such an improvement would be innately recognized. Currently I feel it is just a lot of effort over nothing. All of the stigma will trail the new name like a plague. It is not realistic to think that suddenly we will be able to launch an educational publicity effort that will abolish the negative connotations, since negative messages [b]will[/b] keep appearing in the media, relating this disease to all kinds of horror and violence. The media like death. You will never see a positive drug story either.

I have mixed emotions about this.

On the one hand, I think it’s time to abolish the term “schizophrenia” – as in, get rid of it in its entirety, toss it off the planet.

On the other hand, I’m not sure any person is “susceptible” to a relapse of psychosis, simply because they’ve undergone such an episode.

In short, IMO, the *root causes* are what need to be adressed. As I’ve written many times on this site, I think those root causes can be unique for each individual.

“Psychosis” is an event, not a person.
And a person can overcome a psychotic event, and go on to live a full and meaningful life. In some cases, a person can overcome several such events. But there appears to be no indication that someone would remain “susceptible” to such events, once the root cause or causes have been addressed.

To clarify, I’m not saying someone should ever be told to “get over” a psychosis, but rather, encouraged to “overcome” such an epsisode, and begin to see it as something that happened in their life – with a clear distiction between something that took place and who they are as a person.

The *person* is who needs to be seen as valuable. And, in the spiritual sense, *holy* in spite of whatever events have taken place in their lives, however traumatic. We must, as a people begin to see the *value* that comes in all of this – for the person who undergoes such episode(s), as an opportunity for growth and renewal – an awakening, strengthening, enduring event. The human soul has the ability to constantly grow, becoming stronger each day; better than before.

Duane

What we need instead is not simply a different label but entirely different ways of thinking about those psychological experiences and behaviours that have historically been mislabelled and misunderstood.

Intergation disorder has changed nothing in Japan btw. One might as well go with dopamine disregulation disorder as suggested by Proff Colin Murray at the Institute of Psychiatry in the UK for all the good a name change would do.

The name for manic depressive disorder was changed to bipolar. The name for split personality disorder was changed to dissociative identity disorder. Did any of these make a difference? No. The public still would rather scoff at people than try to under stand, and psychiatrists simply transferred there existing stigmas to the new label.

As long as schizophrenia and PSS are equated, the stigma will not change. Why not try something truly radical like defining PSS to be something different than schizophrenia? Or perhaps by making PSS a label that is self-adopted, rather than assigned by psychiatry?

The people who know what schizophrenia means – such as my home doctor – already are prone to interpret normal behaviour or opinions as symptoms of this disease. When I make statements that my home doctor does not believe can be true, she interprets them as delusions. When I describe feelings my home doctor does not believe can exist, she interprets them as hallucinations. Purely because she knows my label. You are not taken seriously. You are not respected in your thoughts. It would be horrible if the masses started doing this as well. It is better for regular folk to not know my diagnosis. It is better for people to treat me as a regular person.

I don’t think this is an “answer” but I do think it’s a small step in a better direction. I believe people have the right to call themselves whatever they like so if some stick to older labels good for them, if others prefer a new one, go for it, if others reject them all, good on them.

I like the “syndrome” part quite a lot, I also like the “susceptibility” part somewhat – me I believe all 7billion humans are variously susceptible so we all have PSS – I’m not sure about the “psychosis ” part mostly because we don’t know what psychosis is – or at we least can’t agree yet..your psychosis is my dream [I’m serious] …

…but I do like “PSS” a lot more than “shitzophrenia”, partly because it necessitates a “I have…” or ” I live with…” use of language rather than “I am a …”

Sometimes, to make a big change we must start by simply moving- take a step, any step, somewhere, any direction, even in a non-optimal direction, just to get moving – so we can get used to the idea that we can move. Once we’re moving, changing direction a little at a time is easier than starting from stuck-still. A sailing vessel likely has to tack with and against the wind to get across the ocean.

In the end a diagnosis simply indicates what treatment might be useful- that’s all it is.
I believe that if a person wants to use it as an identity then it’s their choice, no one else’s.
but what we call others -and populations of others- is something that is worth paying attention to and worth thinking about carefully.

I agree that schizophrenia is a fraught, loaded term but I don’t think that PSS will fare any better if it becomes commonplace. As a poster alluded to above, having my manic depression relabelled as bipolar disorder hasn’t improved my life any.

“Susceptibility” is a rubbery concept and with PSS it’ll be assumed to be a biological or genetic susceptibility being referred to. I think we should get rid of these labels altogether and stop teaching people that they’re fundamentally different.

I’ve been corrected after using the term “wacko” or something similar, to which I respond “How about you let someone who has a mental illness decide how to refer to it?” I’m generally opposed to political correctness anyway.

Rarely does a change in terminology foster systemic change or lessen stigma.

I was a patient then a recipient then a client then a consumer putatively then a person in recovery. I lived through the eras of psychosocial rehabilitation, evidence based practices, best practices, recovery and now Wellness & Recovery. The only thing that changed was my medication which was always “safer and more effective.”

Diagnosing needs to be done away with – period. Open Dialogue has by far the world’s best outcomes for “first episode psychosis,” and they do not diagnose. They just interact with “patients” and their social networks – over many years, if that’s what it takes.

As long as we even use the term “diagnosis,” we are playing on psychiatry’s medical model home turf – the finding of “illness” within the “patient,” and, overwhelmingly, the use of “medications” (which should just be called “drugs”).

If we have to even indirectly refer to “diagnosis,” it should be called what it is – LABELING. That makes clear what’s really going on with “diagnosis” – nothing scientific, nothing accurate about the person, and it’s being imposed on the person by an outsider for the outsider’s own purposes.

If you need to describe the person, do so in matter of fact, common language: if he is “depressed,” say what’s really going on. For example: “Mr. Smith says he feels very sad most of the time,” or “He says he’s lost interest in things he usually enjoys.” This doesn’t imply a “disease,” or that he’s fundamentally different from the rest of humanity; it simply says why Mr. Smith is seeking some help (if he is seeking help).

Instead of mucking about with scientific sounding terms like “schizophrenia” or “psychosis” that are not connected to reality except by the value judgments of others, why not say, “Ms. Jones says she hears voices that others don’t hear, and that scare her;” or, “She says she receives disturbing secret messages from the TV programs she watches.”

This is better than “diagnosis,” but the truth is, people should not be summed up in labels or brief statements. Humans are the most complex entities in the known universe. Each of us is unique in all the universe, and we interact with thousands of other equally unique/complex humans, who are in turn influenced by cultures made up of millions or billions of humans. Why would a single word, phrase or paragraph be useful in saying anything meaningful about any one of us.

My significant other recently attended a lecture by a Johns Hopkins associate professor of psychiatry. He said he was taught in psychiatric residency that you can’t “diagnose” someone until you have known them for a year. The lecturer was pleased to say, “We have come a long way since then. Now we can do it in 2 hours.” (Actually, make that 15 to 60 minutes for most psychiatrists).

We don’t need to “diagnose” or label people. We need to GET TO KNOW THEM. And too bad if that makes billing more complicated.

The majority of the commentators above have their reservations about Psychosis Susceptibility Syndrome (PSS) as a more modern name for schizophrenia. On the other hand when I started reading this there were 64 Likes and 24 Tweets (not necessarily favorable Tweets).

I agree that the condition is complex and that individual people are complex. There is no one cause of PSS and no one defining symptom. There is a cluster of symptoms, a different cluster for each person.

There is something to be said for abandoning diagnoses altogether. But as the last post hinted, abandoning diagnoses might have unintended practical consequences.

The important thing is not the change in the name, but to take the opportunity to educate the public as to what we experts by experience actually experience; and to get rid of the myths!! Bill George, Anoiksis.

I do agree that recovery is often a matter of discovery. B.G.

“Rationale

Negative symptoms are, for example, lack of feelings and energy. Cognitive symptoms are, for example, problems with concentration and memory or a reduced capacity for problem-solving. These symptoms hinder daily and social life and are very persistent.”

That description doesn’t show much understanding of Schizophrenia, It just does the same as the flat-lined psychiatrists – it describes symptoms without understanding the emotional functioning or the basic emotional dysfunction which drives the symptoms.
Psychiatrists will just regard this name change idea as patient’s refusal to accept they are ill. Psychiatry has the control of the name – psychiatrists would have to be the ones to want name change.
People don’t like the name because they have been told schizophrenia is incurable by psychiatry and they tend to believe it as very few people know it is curable.
…
Recovery is an inappropriate word to use. Schizophrenia is resolvable by personalty re-integration , a person does not go back to anything he was before as the word “recovery” suggests. Psychiatry has lots of “recovered” schizophrenics – they have most of their symptoms suppressed due to drug lobotomization. To a psychiatrist “recovery” is nothing – it means that they own you – if anyone is genuinely cured or transformed or re-integrated as a person I recommend not to use this word.

Upon further inspection I suspect this Anoiksis Society is either funded or co-opted to a large degree by the Bio-Med Industry in spite of the front page statement of being “completely run” by “consumers”.
…
The Schizophrenic Society of Canada is also “completely run by consumers” , however (I infiltrated it and studied it) it was created and is backed by hidden bosses in the Government in complete collusion with the Bio-Med Industry. The administration are basically straw dogs for the real owners.
I’m seeing a great deal of the same structure in the Dutch organization.

This accounts for why the description for the new name of Schizophrenia is taken completely from the DSM or from Psychiatria – just reworded here and there.

I browsed the Dutch Website with a translator.
Here are some things to note:
..
In the name itself the membership of Anoiksis schizophrenia is equated with chronic psychosis. This is a view of SZ as an incurable disease, there is no understanding that SZ as a condition can be cured. So only those still suffering from SZ can be members? Apparently the paradigm of cure doesn’t exist there.
* They have “recovery” and “recovery stories” )Bio-med terminology) and as usual no on is cured. The definition of recovery is exactly like the Bio-med description.
There is no mention of drugs anywhere on the site but plenty of mention of treatment. Everyone must be getting them but shhh don’t talk about it?
There is no accounting for ownership or executive structure, no one responsible – no accounting for the power structure.

They claim to be both Positive/Negative towards psychiatry.
All there associations are with Bio-med organizations. – question is who is in charge and whom is using whom. Psychiatry, the institution adn ideology, is fascist pure and sweet, if any power is given to them they will oppress.
…
National Mental Health Platform, the Rehabilitation Centre Knowledge, various government institutions and other patient associations,

Supposedly a “friendly tame psychiatrist ” is on the ruling committee – but the question is who’s dog is who’s. I have already seen how this works in Canada.

Then as I browse the various pages I find things like a video in Dutch “A new paradigm: life with a living loss”. which means something like “how to live permanently with (incurable) Schizophrenia.
..
The only way I could see such a society being successfully run is under ether those who have been completely cured of Schizophrenia or those who have facilitated cures. But in fact cure or even an understanding of Schizophrenia as a emotional dysfunction is not on the site.
If someone could prove to me this organization is not co-opted or running under the ideology of Bio-med Psychiatry, I lay down the challenge.

Thank you Xen. Jacqui Dillon is also not a sufferer from Schizophrenia and she is also not mad. But she has considerable insight. She is one of the sanest people I know of. Bill

Happy and Productive New Year everybody, with or without wings, with or without PSS. Bill George

I am aware that I’m indoctrinated, but the Dutch culture is *very* strong in that. I feel drugged. Submission is communicated on so many levels. In this country the basic premise is “trust the government, it takes good care of you.” I think people know me as the guy who has a big mouth – who criticizes everything – without knowing how to escape.
…
You have no idea how repressive this country is, and neither do the people who live here.

What can I do?

@Xen
I forgot to mention this one thing. If you complain abut the social system and say you don’t know how to solve it, it means your identity has been compromised, you have been co-opted in some way to protect the very system that oppresses you. Your aggression has been cut off at the knees.

Also let us compare the statements you make above with all of the sympathetic and wimpy statements you make about your oppressors. It doesn’t compute.

You see, if people can see, understand the social problems they have, that is 90 percent , the solutions are obvious. If people saw the truth there would be a revolution in one hour and in one day all the regimes would fall.
But they don’t. Submission and compliance is indoctrinated in the masses. You want to change a part but cannot touch the root and burn down the tree.
Learn to fight – put a little hate in your heart. it couldn’t hurt.

“It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
-Robert F Kennedy

Heh, since I am striking out against injustice that means I am establishing a tiny ripple of hope that will eventually bring down the great wall of totalitarianism in the current form of accelerating economic fascism that RFK helped to establish.

I’m so cool – thank you RFK.