Here is a short review of the Tim Murphy mental health bill. I show the research that was left out when the bill was written, how advocates can approach the issue, and what the main problem with ignoring the research will be.
1. Review the academic literature on forced treatment, some of it shows benefit, but most shows that we could spend the money on increasing voluntary access for anyone and get outcomes just as good. In other words, what “helps” is not the compulsion or force, but simply the increased access created for people that get into that system, so there’s really no point in creating that compulsion system at all. A bunch of literature articles for both sides of the debate are right here in this dropbox folder. Advocates should emphasize the money and lack of evidence base over the human rights aspect as, to be honest, most folks don’t care about our human rights. The bottom line is the Tim Murphy mental health bill replaces peer support, which works, with forced treatment, which doesn’t.
2. Use existing summary documents about the issue. The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD Publications) came up with a large review of forced treatment that said that it was not really all that helpful. They did, however, find that peer support was the #1 most effective way to help people with mental health challenges. Advocates can simply show the data saying, “We know a better way to do this.” The Tim Murphy mental health bill replaces years of nuanced discussion and knowledge with a broad axe simply for political reasons.
3. Apply SAMHSA’s Recommendations on Court Ordered Treatment: In 2011 SAMHSA brought together quite a few advocates to dialogue on forced treatment including people from both sides of the issue. Here is the Powerpoint presentation of court ordered treatment recommendations that came during the event. In general, that event has not resulted in impressive changes or information being shared. Advocates can simply say, “This forced treatment issue has long been discussed and dismissed. There is not much evidence to support it.” The Tim Murphy mental health bill doesn’t honor mental health care recomendations based on input from very many stakeholders.
4. Follow the money. Two of the top five biggest donating industries for Tim Murphy are pharmaceutical and health care professionals. Adviocates would do well to point out how the Tim Murphy mental health bill is about replacing small grassroots peer based programs with large corporate subsidies to pharma, institutions, and agencies that promote long-term disability and not complete recovery.
5. Respect all the parties involved. The forced treatment lobby is made up of moms who don’t know how to help their kids who won’t work on recovery, so I’ve previously tried to collect support for that demographic. There is also a small portion of people like Fred Frese who actually think that forced treatment helped them recover. If their recovery story is valid, so is ours. So live and let live when they tell their stories. But, also, anecdotal evidence is not useful for decision making in the aggregrate, for either side of the story. Acknowledge that some stories are statistical outliers and if a treatment does more harm than good in the aggregate, that does not mean it doesn’t help a few people who got lucky. But if it doesn’t hold up statistically, it should in no way become standard, with this type of lottery applied to uninformed people.
Overall, making it an “us vs. them,” story is not nearly as appealing as talking about the corporate welfare, waste of money, ineffective treatment, and ignorance of past research that the Tim Murphy mental health bill represents.
* * * * *
From the author: Forgive the brevity of this post, but I’m still recovering from a brain injury and typing and computer use still hurts, so be patient waiting for a response for comments. This issue was just too important to not put in my two cents worth even though it might cost me another day or two of agonizing headaches.
Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.
Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.
“Advocates should emphasize the money and lack of evidence base over the human rights aspect as, to be honest, most folks don’t care about our human rights.”
I wonder, truly, how many people don’t know their rights. Or human rights.
I think in some instances of so-called mental illness (mental distress), lack of good, quality education can be a significant factor.
“moms who don’t know how to help their kids who won’t work on recovery”
I have listened in on phone calls parents make to drug and alcohol treatment centers, half of them are “Web Md experts” dropping words like co-occurring disorder and dual diagnosis.
Parents have almost no way of knowing the medical model is a total fraud. Look at how beautifully all that fraudulent information is written. They are so good they have parents believing if they don’t give there “Adhd” child amphetamines in elementary school there untreated “illness” will lead to substance abuse !!!
When these kids start showing signs of amphetamine psychosis these parents read more fraudulent information that convinces them there child is bipolar and needs more drugs !!
Then when the kid gets tired of the Zombie life that comes with “treatment” for bipolar and tries to stop taking the drugs and cant sleep and has all kinds of crazy withdrawal reactions or takes street drugs the “expert” parents by this point have read a few more page one google results on the subject and know all about the need for medication compliance…
Its sick whats going on.
You can read the parents parroting the fraudulent information back and forth.
This MdJunction website is just a playground for the munchausen syndrome by proxy parents who become treatment advocates to push the treatments that never did anything but hurt there own child on more desperate parents who take the advice and get the same bad results.
“When these kids start showing signs of amphetamine psychosis these parents read more fraudulent information that convinces them there child is bipolar and needs more drugs !!”
I thought you were reading my mind. This is so spot on that it must be like hitting the replay button on a popular song. The crazy thing is that some of these kids have turned into adults that are now in prison being forced to take the same medications that created and precipitated a minor problem into a major catastrophe.
It’s like driving by a major car accident and slowing down to look at it, wondering what happen, and feeling glad it wasn’t you or your family. Someday it might be!
You make some good points but if we stop pursuing the civil right angle because no one cares about them, pretty soon we won’t have any.
Good comment, well said (short and sweet).
“Advocates should emphasize the money and lack of evidence base over the human rights aspect as, to be honest, most folks don’t care about our human rights.”
I believe we owe it to unsuspecting citizens, to alert them to the growing threats of our ever-expanding Therapeutic State.
For that reason, I offer the following thoughts, in response to your blog post…
I am not opposed to government subsidized heath care; however, in my humble opinion, our government should not be in the business of providing ‘mental health care’ — as government-sponsored ‘mental health care’ inevitably creates vast inequalities between its citizens — unconstitutional inequalities — based on the horrifically fraudulent, pseudo-scientific (and quasi-religious) ‘medical discipline’ that is Psychiatry.
Even the most cursory reading of our U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights clearly suggests that our government should not be in the business of providing ‘mental health care’ – because, when ‘mental health care’ is offered, inevitably, it is offered by professionals (MH pros) whose formal education began with a study of definitions, of what are supposedly unacceptable (or, at least ‘abnormal’) ways of thinking and believing…
Thus, to give the pros government authorized power is always to ensure they shall wind up infringing upon citizens’ 1st Amendment rights, to free speech and (implied) freedom of worship.
[Note: My own intro to psychiatric “involuntary hospitalization” began with an psychiatric ER Inquisitor’s ‘assessment’ of my beliefs; it continued for hours, until I was asked, “Do you think you are going to die and be reborn in a new life?” I said, “yes” — and did not think that would be a problem — as “yes” answer to that question reflects a very well-known, standard, Eastern belief, in ‘reincarnation’; to save my skin, I would have said “no” …had I realized the psychiatrist would take my “yes” as his license to officially declare that I was supposedly “a danger” to myself. Minutes later, I would be forcibly drugged and carted away…)
Of course, my own story could be called ‘anecdotal’ — as can anyone’s story of psychiatrists and other MH pros deciding the fate of citizens, based on their own professional prejudices, including but not limited to prejudices against traditional religious belief.
[For another ‘anecdotal’ example, see also the recent comment by MIA commenter, Someone Else: http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/02/bipolar-by-definition-2/#comment-35255 ]
I say, to all unsuspecting citizens:
The more any country’s government develops its ‘mental health care’ system, the more that a three-tiered caste system develops within that society — with the ‘mental health’ professionals forming the Top-caste in that society… and with the psychiatrists dominating that Top-caste, of ‘mental health’ pros.
That Top-caste is, itself, stratified — ruled over, by whatever may be the final word of its High Priests and Priestesses, the psychiatrists. (Under them, are the clinical psychologists – and, under them, licensed therapists, who wield some variable but relatively quite limited powers. Also, at the bottom of that Top-cast, there are psych-techs and psych nurses, etc..)
Now, in recent years, there are government certified peer counselors, who find a place for themselves, working amongst that high caste, of professionals. But, they are actually members of the bottom caste, the Low-caste, the ‘untouchables’; most of the Top-caste professionals look down up them – even as their certification lends them some small hope, that they may possibly avoid being viewed as the lowest of the low.
The second tier of citizenship (the Middle-caste) represents the vast majority of citizens.
It is stratified primarily by economic status – but, also, somewhat by race and by gender.
These are all the individuals who are neither MH pros nor clients/service-users/slaves of the ‘mental health’ system; everyone is born a member of this class.
The third tier of citizens makes up the low-caste; it is a caste of slaves and indentured servants. It is created by labels (called “diagnoses”) that have been applied, by the above-mentioned High Priests and Priestesses, the psychiatrists, the top members of the Top-caste.
All of the Low-caste’s members are ultimately beholden to the psychiatrists.
Like the High-caste of ‘mental health’ professionals, which is led by psychiatrists and like the Middle-caste (which consists of the the non-labeled and the non-MH professionals), this bottom caste (the Low-caste) is stratified.
At the top of this bottom caste are individuals who, though ‘treated’ by psychiatrists, somehow manage to avoid being called “mentally ill” or “mentally disordered”; and, at the bottom of this caste are those who are deemed “severely mentally ill” or “severely mentally disordered.”
There are many levels in between…
And, again, I point out: There are, lately (all the time, more so) folk from this low-caste, who are becoming government-certified peer counselors.
You summarize by saying, that: “The bottom line is the Tim Murphy mental health bill replaces peer support, which works, with forced treatment, which doesn’t.”
Well, there was a time, when “peer support” indicated non-professional support and support which required no government certification…
It was, in the past, simply support which came, from those with lived experience, of recovery – including, oftentimes, full/total recovery, in this sense that it included even and especially recovery from psychiatry…
I don’t believe, generally speaking, that’s what “peer support” means, these days.
Hence, I doubt all peer support works (at least, I suppose it doesn’t all work equally well).
And, to be frank, I must say: I get the feeling, from some literature created by some peers, that a lot of peer support largely supports the status quo.
For instance, here, in this blog, it seems me that, in effect, you’re asking peers: Hey, when critiquing the Murphy bill, please, don’t discuss the matter of human rights.
It seems to me that you’re saying any objections to human rights violations can only create an “Us vs. Them” conflict.
Your post concludes,
I think you’re wrong about that…
IMHO, it’s very important to recognize that anyone can potentially become a victim of ‘mental health’ labeling, and that labeling can lead to third-class citizenship, in which one is forever more or less stripped of ones Constitutional rights.
Really, Corinna, it is Psychiatry (and the ‘mental health’ professionals who play along with Psychiatry’s pronouncements), which creates the “us vs. them” atmosphere.
However, for the sake of discussion, I’ll say it’s a fairly accurate basic summation of the Murphy bill that you’ve offered – as I am fully opposed to forced ‘treatment,’ and I presume that, in some instances (but certainly not all instances), a provision of government-certified “peer support” can help to avert a use of force.
Hence, I am with you, as you oppose the Murphy bill.
I am with you, in opposing that bill, of course… because it is an absolutely awful bill.
Still, my deep skepticism regarding government funded ‘mental health’ care, of all kinds, leads me to be doubtful that government authorized “peers” can, in any way consistently, help to prevent forced ‘treatment’.
I am standing in the same court with you, opposing that bill — absolutely.
Meanwhile, I’m doubtful that government authorize “peers” are the answer…
After all, I’m not feeling at all encouraged by reading your suggestion that the issue of human rights should be down-played; on the contrary, I fully agree with commenter, AA (who writes, “if we stop pursuing the civil right angle because no one cares about them, pretty soon we won’t have any”).
From this point of view, I feel compelled to suggest to you, that you’re making a serious mistake, in this blog post, in your advice to “advocates”.
(Note — Corinna — I wonder if you can please clarify something: tell me if I’m wrong, but it seems that, by “advocates,” you mean to say advocates of government funded peer support? But, maybe you mean “advocates” of trauma-informed ‘recovery’ models of ‘mental health’ care? At last, I’m unsure what you mean, as you repeat that term, “advocates”; as an advocate of human rights, I feel it would be helpful if you could explain which “advocates” you are aiming to address…)
I wonder, what quality of ‘advocacy’ is it, which calls for deliberately down-playing the human rights issues, at stake, here?
Personally, I feel that recovery from psychiatric abuse requires both (A) ones full recognition of how ones own rights have been violated and (B) insistence upon full constitutional protections, equally, for oneself and for all others…
Really, I do not believe, in the least, that any psychiatrists should be authorized to captivate anyone; and, least of all do I feel they should be authorized to forcibly ‘treat’ anyone…
I believe that those of us who know, first-hand, the abuses that such ‘treatment’ leads to, must strive for nothing less than justice for one and all – equal citizenship – wherein every individual who is captivated by any government authorized agents (including the government-authorized agents deemed “experts in mental health,” who reason tells us should not be authorized that way) receives due process of law.
I deeply believe, that recovery, for many of us, is nothing short of recovery from psychiatry — because the worst harms we’ve ever suffered were harms ordered by psychiatrists; and, so, there comes a point, in recovery, from such ‘treatment,’ that our conscience naturally calls us to speak out, as clearly and directly as we possibly can, against the human rights violations that are, of course, inherent in so-called “Assisted Outpatient Treatment” and in all other psychiatric so-called “treatment” that’s likewise comprised of Psychiatry’s endlessly pseudo-scientific claims and other B.S., including so much physically un-substantiated labeling and other mumbo-jumbo, which inevitably ignores the severe, negative effects of such ‘treatment’; so, yes, we should certainly point out the scientifically proven health-destroying effects of psychopharmacology. We should point out the economic costs of ‘treating’ stress-induced sufferings with coerced ‘treatment’.
Of course, we should become, to the best of our abilities, well-versed in those matters; and, we should discuss them, to the best of our abilities.
But, no less, we should study our U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights (also, to the best of our abilities, we should study the rights being outlined by the U.N ), so that we can effectively point out the human rights violations inherent in coercing individuals to accept such ‘treatment’.*
P.S. – Corinna, before reading your post, I had not been aware that you’d been hurt in a biking accident. I’m sorry to hear you’re still suffering its effects. I wish you a speedy recovery… (and a wondrous New Year!) …Respectfully, J.
*Statement by Mr. Juan E Mendez SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR, to the United Nations, ON TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
P.S. — Above, I urged studying the U.S. Bill of Rights and rights laid out by the U.N….
On second thought, I feel that’s not urging enough…
So, here, additionally, I urge: Study the Thirteen Amendment (directed at ending slavery) and the Fourteen Amendment (promising equal protection and due process).
And, note: From the U.N., there’s the ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ and the ‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (IMHO, both U.N. documents can potentially inspire us to recognize and speak up about the abuses we’ve suffered via the official pronouncements and orders of psychiatrists… and at the hands of other ‘MH’ pros who either serve or ally themselves with psychiatry).
I call them testimonies.
Jonah, I think your Caste-system analysis is so spot on.
After winning my mediation against a voc rehab agency for discrimination, I set up my own practice, which I consider to be an alternative to traditional mental health treatment. Fortunately, so have others who have come to me, either, for support while tapering from meds, or in order to avoid meds and any kind of traditional treatment, in the first place.
Thinking that I left the system behind me successfully, after I’d been practicing for about a year, I volunteered with an advocacy agency to do public speaking around the city, so that I could tell my story of coming off medication and how I was able to successfully transition myself out of the system. That’s what led to my making a film. I was called a ‘peer educator’ and I didn’t mind, I thought it was appropriate. Even though I considered myself healed and I was professionally established in the community, I still considered myself a peer, as those of us in this speakers’ bureau had a very powerful shared experience, even though we were at different stages of our healing. I was the only one that considered myself completely finished with all of this, medically speaking.
I didn’t know at the time the implication of taking on the ‘peer’ identity. But I soon learned. It was around every corner. I fought it while I was there, as I did when I worked in voc rehab, but we’re talking about the a very rigid government system, iron clad. It’s a fixed perception, due to its profitability.
I put all of this–my healing work and the film, all with powerful and affirming testimonials–into a very complete and well-rounded package of healing and advocacy, specifically highlighting social ills and negative projections onto others as the major contributing factor to severe mental distress. That’s what my website and work is all about.
I couldn’t get anywhere with advocacy, because of this caste-system. On the one hand, they were encouraging me because I was a good example of self-advocacy and self-healing, and I was embodying my success. Regardless of anything, I was still a ‘peer,’ which meant that no matter what I produced, no matter how clean, direct, novel, and relevant my work was, neither professional nor financial support for my work would ever come my way from them. I was led around in circles for a year, until I finally saw the writing on the wall, and I left that community.
Since these were advocates, I naively assumed that it would be a different world there than in day treatment or voc rehab. I didn’t realize they were siphoning from the same cash tank, but they were. At first, I thought it was a go, from how they encouraged me, but in the end, they were totally two-faced with me. They had me on quite a roller-coaster for a while, but alas, another lesson learned.
I’ve worked with spiritual teachers and energy healers for a long time, and I’m one of them now. I haven’t sought psychological or psychiatric services of any kind for years. Still, there was absolutely no place in that caste-system for me that was acceptable, so my partner and I packed up and moved from the city to a rural town, where none of this is relevant any longer, so I’m at peace now, and on longer haunted by these illusions of hierarchy. I’m a country healer and teacher now, with a good practice, and that’s all I am here.
At the end of it all, I do believe that civil and human rights are vital to address, and with persistence. I think the violation of these on such a grand scale is what creates the majority of our health issues, both individually and socially. I’m glad that people are waking up to what has been happening, and that they are pissed as hell, as I had been for a long time, until I allowed my perspective to shift, kind of mellowed me out a bit. But between my lawsuit and the film, I feel I gave it back, and hopefully, my efforts have rippled out and made an impact, other than in my own life. For me, fighting back was totally healing. It’s how I was able to retrieve my self-respecting voice, from which the system did an excellent job of eclipsing me, for a while.
As someone who went from having had a successful first career in retail management, to being a grad student and intern, to suddenly having 3rd class citizenship brutally projected onto me (which was hell to crawl out from under), I’d say that this rage is reasonable. It’s infuriating to be demeaned, mistrusted, suspect, and lied to over and over again from people to whom we turn in trust–many of whom are paid handsomely via grants, et al. For me, what was especially tough was that this blatant stigma (from the anti-stigma people, we all know that tragic paradox by now) interfered directly with my inalienable right to make a living.
But when I read about it on here, my blood still boils. I shouldn’t read about it so much, but I can’t help it, I feel that the situation created by the ‘mental health’ industry’s lack of regard for human beings is affecting the world at large so adversely. While I can now create my own existence from my own personal beliefs about how we operate, I do still live in this world. I would love to live long enough to see this insanity-causing toxicity cleaned up but good.
Thanks, as always, for your amazing clarity.
“…hopefully, my efforts have rippled out and made an impact, other than in my own life. For me, fighting back was totally healing. It’s how I was able to retrieve my self-respecting voice, from which the system did an excellent job of eclipsing me, for a while.”
Thank you for your validating response. Surely, your efforts have rippled out and made a very positive impact; and, they continue to do so…
All things considered, the story you tell here (of finding no genuine reception, within the existing ‘mental health’ system) is not surprising.
After all, where, in any sort of system, are there funds established for making that system itself obsolete?
I am reminded that, in another MIA comment thread, you asked (on December 22, 2013 at 9:10 am),
I think that here, in this discussion, we have the answer to your questions.
That turmoil in the so-called “mental health world” is born of an huge power struggle — an endless fight for rank (if not often for outright supremacy).
(The psychiatrists have long held supremacy, the highest rank; and, I firmly believe they will continue doing so, forever — as they are ‘doctors/physicians’ with the ultimate/supreme power over “involuntary patient” minds. Even when the psychiatrists’ powers to forcibly ‘treat’ individuals are somewhat curtailed, their power remains supreme, for they are the ultimate distributors of “diagnostic” labeling, and — most importantly — they are armed with their countless mind-altering chemical weapons and other brain-invasive ‘treatments’; as long as there are psychiatric “hospitals,” no one in the ‘mental health’ system shall ever totally outrank them.)
Perhaps, from now on, when referring to that vast and ever-expanding web of so-called “mental health” professionals, we should speak in terms of “the ‘mental health’ Caste system” …as opposed to calling it just the “mental health system” or even the “‘mental health’ system” (as I often do).
I am certified hypnotherapist — non-practicing.
(The education I received was highly informative, but I never felt comfortable in the role.)
There are various kinds of hypnotherapist. With this certification, which I have, one absolutely does not call oneself a ‘mental health’ worker.
Via my hypnotherapy training, I received an excellent ‘formal’ education in the dynamics of habit formation — which included certain techniques of ‘subconscious behaviorism’; though that may sound like some kind of ‘mental health’ work, really, it’s not.
With the certification I received, one is technically qualified to call oneself a ‘vocational and avocational counselor.’
In the course of our training, often we were frequently reminded, “This is not psychotherapy,” and I always found that reassuring.
On a similar note…
I once received some 1:1 instruction, in meditation, from a yoga teacher, who had been a long-time practitioner of Zen…
He was a very good meditation teacher.
He insisted that his many years of attempting to ‘clear the mind’ (in Zen meditation), had not served him well; now, he was all about simply observing the mind — without expectations and without judging…
Always, he was adamant that he personally knew not a thing about ‘mental health’ — and nothing about psychology.
I’m all for good/responsible energy healing and spiritual counseling.
In my humble opinion, there is no need for ‘mental health’ work.
All great stuff, Jonah. Seems we’re really on the same page, here. I totally agree with everything you say above.
Yes, the ‘mental health’ Caste system. It’s become the focal point of this operation, inherently and aggressively, rather than the health and well-being of the client, and their process. Front line staff is left to carry the burden, which I’ve seen split them. I’ve done presentations and trainings with social workers, and they’re always feeling caught in the middle, between client and management, and from fear, of course, they tow the party line–which does NOT serve the client, and in fact, can easily end up being harmful. Hard to blame them, really, everyone is in a tough spot in that world. We’re ALL looking for our personal power, here, and our heart’s truth.
Moreover, this hierarchy creates a climate of fear and intimidation, which is as unhealthful as one can get. How on earth can *anyone* in that environment be healthy? It’s like pouring rat poison in a public park. Anyone who goes there for whatever their reason is would wind up sick, one way or another.
And yes, it’s highly competitive for power, which is the LAST thing that a mental health facility needs! It takes up all of one’s energy to navigate a culture like this, and these kinds of dynamics are exactly what lead people to seek help to begin with, hence all the re-trauma happening in ‘mental health treatment.’
I think any training in healing disciplines, such as hypnotherapy, is incredibly valuable. Hypnosis, meditation, Qi Gong/Tai Chi, etc., are grounding and centering. Practicing these as disciplines train the mind and body to align with our heart and spirit, which is when we experience wellness. By practicing these, we are actually practicing wellness. They also integrate masculine and feminine (yin/yang), and cosmic and earth energy.
I did 4 years of chakra meditation, energy healing and clairvoyant training at a school in San Francisco. I was also ordained there, which is how I became a spiritual counselor. I’m a non-denominational minister. I also do psychic energy and healing work. Aside from this training, I also trained as a medical intuit, while becoming Reiki attuned. I did an internship in Santa Rosa at a cancer clinic, which is where I was able to apply and synthesize all that I had learned. From this, I became a certified Advanced Hospital Integral Health Practitioner. All this together packed a punch, and pushed me way forward in my own healing, as I trained. If you want to check it out: http://www.embodycalm.com
My integral health teacher is Buddhist, although I don’t identify as such. I still say I’m Jewish, but my spiritual beliefs really lie in a more universal source energy realm.
‘Mental Health,’ per se, is not the focus of my work. My work is for anyone, there is no discrimination when working with energy.
On an introductory level, I teach about grounding, boundaries, and mind/body/spirit alignment. On a more advanced level, I teach about how to work with universal energy to manifest consciously (which would include things like manifesting healing, but that is up to each person to decide what that looks like), I work with identifying our spirit voice (trust), as opposed to ego voice (fear). I help people align to their own voice of healing and well-being, and to trust it.
Like all healers and teachers, my work is based on all that I learned in this elaborate journey. Always working to streamlining it, but as of now, it’s working well. There’s always new information to learn and integrate, which is why I enjoy this work so much. It’s a never-ending learning process.
I also agree with you wholeheartedly that there is no need for ‘mental health’ work. I did 20 years of that, intensively, and not only reached a dead end, but it made me sick and disabled, in the long run. Not just the meds and social structure, but all that talk therapy gave me what I call “therapy brain.’’ Burned up all my energy and kept me out of my body. I had to heal from that, too.
The energy work healed all that ailed me, and, in the process, it also taught me all I needed to know about creating my life experience. My partner caught on, and we’re creating like gangbusters. And now, I have a group of 6, all learning the same thing–a couple of them have histories of diagnosis and medication, while others do not. There is no distinction, here. When I get a group going, it’s fascinating to watch what we all co-create together. We get really plugged in. It’s a blast, really! Most fascinating thing I’ve ever done, and always healing.
Ok, this post is long enough. I don’t mean to hijack. Seemed like a good opportunity to present some alternatives with clarity, here. Thanks for indulging me, and for this discussion. These social issues are the aspects of our life experience which I most focus on because they’re so bloody toxic, and I seek as much clarity as I can. Your information has helped me gain this clarity. (Plus, I could talk about healing, energy, and manifesting forever. I’ve developed a passion for all of this).
Corrina, thank you for bringing up these issues for discussion. This has been really valuable for my own personal growth.
I have to disagree with you here and agree with others who have expressed similar views,
“there is also a small portion of people like Fred Frese who actually think that forced treatment helped them recover. If their recovery story is valid, so is ours”
When we are talking about civil liberties, statistical significance is irrelevant. The first amendment protections for freedom of speech or association are not applied paternalistically. I am very sure that a lot of people, in retrospect, would have loved to be forcibly shut up prior to saying something stupid that was constitutionally protected but that somebody else found offensive and that resulted in a loss of a job with the corresponding loss of income. Look at the Duck Dinasty controversy. While I am sure that the clan doesn’t care much if the show is cancelled (given that they are very wealthy) I am sure that both Martin Bashir or Alec Baldwin would have appreciated a little bit of government paternalism before saying the things that got both fired and without a job.
Civil liberties are not for sale nor are they dependent on how a majority of people can feel retrospectively if these were violated. That is the whole point of the Bill of Rights, for instance! To have the first amendment repealed, you would need more than a majority house representatives and senators thinking that it is a good idea. You’d need 2/3 of them and then 3/4 of states agreeing to the same. So, if we agree that the matter of psychiatric coercion is a civil rights issue, we cannot pretend it is not just because some people, even the majority of people, involved in so called “mental health” think otherwise. In fact, the civil liberties aspect is the only thing I care about in the context of this bill and psychiatry at large. I have no dog in the fight of who gets what money. I only care about that the HIPAA protections are not weakened and that the standard for civil commitment/forced drugging is not lowered.
I respect you for all you continue to do, and I always enjoy reading your blog posts, but I must say I think you’ve really missed the larger point this time.
The idea that this bill is “more expensive” and “less effective” is not the point.
This bill is *unconstitutional*. That’s the point. And it’s the only real point. The rest matters not.