Friday, September 24, 2021

Comments by teresa

Showing 12 of 12 comments.

  • another thing that can affect what people believe is what people need to believe (to protect themselves).

    i think all psychiatrists need to be asking themselves what they will lose if they don’t believe neuroleptics are effective. and if they are willing to lose these things.

  • i like seeing someone saying in mainstream media that this isn’t enough to stop them. the large sum of money works to obscure things for a lot of people.

    i like that he says we need to hold the individuals responsible. i think the justice department could have legally charged the executives, but they didn’t. i also like that he makes people who wouldn’t otherwise have thought about it (perhaps) think about the fact that the docs and psychiatrists are and shouldn’t be receiving money from the drug companies.

    i think it’s naive though the convenient focus on it being different people working there now. it’s hard to believe that they don’t know what was going on, weren’t they taught by the very people who held the positions before them? and if the new executives disagree with the behavior, why don’t they admit to the past criminal behavior. i think the executives past and present should be held accountable. it’s their job to know how their company is running.

  • i agree, and i think that what they are also not recognising is that often having a parent who has a psychiatric label and psychiatric treatment creates distress for the child, because it is distressing to have a parent who is experiencing distress and/or because it is distressing to have a parent who is being treated with psychiatric medications and/or shock treatment, both of which make the parent less engaged and present for the child. this child will be more likely to experience distress and therefore more likely to find themselves in the mental health system.

  • internet “did” communities put me off, too (to say it mildly). anyone who thinks that “did” is something to brag about…well, they are missing something pretty big about what the experience is like and what caused it and the way that what caused it continues to cause extreme distress. these people infuriate me, acting like it’s all a game, or a way out of taking personal responsibility. i feel like they are appropriating experience, appropriating a coping skill, a way of surviving extreme trauma, and making it into a game or an identity that can be put on and taken off like a dress. (i think maybe there are small online places that is very different than this picture, but they are a quiet sort of hidden community focused on their distress and getting through the day and privacy.) also, if these people had been in “treatment” for “did”, they would know that being diagnosed with “did” means being treated as if you are a disposable not quite human.

    reading that the people in the public “did” communities compare themselves to people with “schizophrenia” and say those things (i didn’t stay around them long enough to hear this, but i believe it) makes me feel sick and angry. it’d make me worse than suspicious. i am having trouble writing this because i am so angry and sad.

    in communities like mia, where i relate to a lot of people are saying, i have felt a sense of “did” being seen as outside the group, of being the them, of being a label to hide. i didn’t understand why. i see it as us and us. i feel like there is no place for me.

    i don’t regard psych labels as valid categories either. and i agree with you that what is labelled “did” and what is labelled “schizophrenia” is very similar experience.

  • people are not being brainwashed into believing that they have “did”. i imagine what you are referring to is that there are some people who developed “did” due to the severe trauma of being tortured by people in control of groups where brainwashing is one form of abuse they experienced.

    it seems that you are saying that “did” is some kind of exception in “mental illness” because you think that we have to weed through these people’s experiences and choose who is and who isn’t real, and can be defined externally because they are only believed to be true by these individual (crazy) (deluded) brainwashed people.

    the thing is, that’s true for all subjective internal experiences/states. if i am diagnosed with “schizophrenia” and i say that i have seen a vision or heard a voice, will you say that i only believe i saw a vision or i only believe i heard a voice? if i am diagnosed with “bipolar” will you say that when i say i feel sad or euphoric will you be concerned that i am tested for the possibility that i only believe i am feeling sad and i only believe i am feeling euphoric? if this is the case, then none of the research is meaningful.

    belief plays a role in shaping experience , a role that we don’t understand, that’s true, but in no different a way in what we call “did” than any other “mental illness”.

  • thanks marian, that’s interesting.

    it’d be great if people would stop seeing “d.i.d.” as less real than other forms of madness. it’s alienating. it’s a lot easier to reject something as a disorder and a defining label when one doesn’t have to use up energy fighting to defend and prove one’s experience as real.

    it’s interesting too because people often say that imagining something is the same as experiencing it, but this seems to say that is not accurate.

    thanks for posting this, kermit.

  • can anyone reading this help me understand the implications? i don’t know much about cerebral bloodflow testing. if they are proving the existence of the parts, just because the different parts (“identity states”) show up differently, does that mean that they think they are proving that “d.i.d.” is a brain disease now? or does it show that the experience of having different parts is a real experience?

  • i think it’s really important to reframe “schizophrenia” as real dissociation and as coming out of trauma. and i think it’s important to dissolve the barriers inbetween diagnositic categories. I’d like to hear more people talk about the similarities between the diagnoses of “d.i.d” and “schizophrenia”.
    in addition, i think it’s important to note that people diagnosed with “d.i.d.” are being given pretty much the same polypharmacy drug treatment as people diagnosed with “schizophrenia” and they are told by psychiatrists that though “d.i.d.” itself is not a brain disease, they also suffer from brain diseases caused by or enabling the dissociative response to the original trauma(s) and so they must take medications for the so-called brain diseases of depression, and of a severe form of anxiety that comes of a severe enough trauma to cause “did” and so are told they must take copious amounts of benzos and neuroleptics in order to deal with the anxiety and depression that is framed as is always co-morbidity with “did” (i’ve never known someone with only the diagnosis of “d.i.d.”) and so in a sense, traditional “did” treatment is both outside and inside the brain disease paradigm.

    this is not usually talked about much, but usually the first thing that happens when someone is diagnosed with “did” is that they require medications to moniter their extreme moods and behavior and “to make therapy possible”. they are told it was caused by trauma, yes, but not to focus on that, to focus on now, and for the now, what got them into treatment, is their distress (feelings or behaviors), so they are told that what they require is medication first.

    like people diagnosed with “schizoprhenia” , people with “d.i.d.” are told that recovery is not possible, only maintenance, and though long-term medication. so i am trying to say that it ends up being a kind of tricky thing the way that psychiatry has “d.i.d” as not a brain disease and yet always having co-morbidity with brain diseases and treated it with polypharamacy.

    also, what i’m trying to say is that though it’s really really important to get people to see that “schizophrenia” is not a brain disease and is caused by trauma-this is not going to be enough as a way to keep psychiatry’s use of ideas of brain disease and medication from remaining the models of treatment for “schizophrenia”. Because i think if it was accepted that “Schizophrenia” was not a brain disease, the same thing would happen that happens with “d.i.d.” and suddenly everyone with “schizophrenia” would be said to have co-morbid brain diseases requiring the same medications they were on in the first place. Again, i am not trying to minimize the social and personal implications of these changes, but instead to highlight the ways that “d.i.d.” being seen as caused by trauma doesn’t play out the way it might seem and the implications that might have for “schizophrenia”.
    In the end it’s a mixed message treatment for people who have had too many mixed messages.
    i think it’s important that we take this into account when thinking about the reframing of “schizophrenia” so we can make more progress in the way both diagnoses are viewed.