Friday, October 18, 2019

Comments by Danny Kochanowski

Showing 12 of 12 comments.

  • Joe, thanks for the read and your comment. This type of systematic set-up sounds very similar to what we have in the states. There are abundant “stigma” groups that exist on the principle of owning and illness, and those who band together to say ‘We have been in the system, and it doesn’t work because X Y and Z,” are far less heard, often invisible. And it’s one thing if this is through younger college students, but another for those in “suicide prevention” organizations that have much easier access to statistics and first-hand accounts of what it is like in the system. I think a principle that humans so often forget is that money talks, but it’s useless in the end compared to humanity. And if you’re in human services, why would you be putting anything before humanity anyway? Here’s to hoping some of those survivor groups can gain some traction, and your stories can be heard. Check out ‘The Icarus Project” and “The Transformation Center”, as well as the Recovery Learning Communities online; they’re excellent examples of organizations where lived experience is the framework.

  • Hi S!

    Thanks for the read. I appreciate you opening up about your story, and for sharing this to the social work page! I’m interested in the reaction to that. I’ve had some people at various schools try to organize around anti-psychiatry, and it’s certainly been tough. Colleges are very engrained in the medical model, in my experience. I think that introducing these topics (i.e involuntary hospitalization, the bad science behind psych drugs, how the system hurts folks, etc.) within organizations like Active Minds is a good start. Some of the reception will certainly be mixed. I was curious of how this article would be received by my former chapter, but they were actually fairly receptive to these ideas. I think garnering interest from already active organizations could be a great way to start a strong base for a counter-organization. But that’s just my two cents! Again, thanks for the read and your kind words.

  • Thanks for the comment, J. This is very insightful; you know, you’re not the first one to tell me that I’m too easy on organizations that have been in tight-knit relationships with big pharma. I think that’s partly a product of my privilege of never being locked away against my will. Do you have any literature that I could read up on to support these malevolent intentions from the early days of NAMI? I’d be very interested to read.

    I hope that our efforts to be more inclusive and accessible don’t fail. Treatment compliance isn’t aligned with any humanistic perspective. I’m amazed at the rose-tinted lenses that the method is observed through. Thanks for your words, they mean a lot!

  • What irks me the most is that this process exploits folks (apparently younger kids, too) who are either curious about helping others, or who are struggling themselves. I think resources that promote financial transparency and valid, empirical data should be as abundant as these anti-stigma resources. Money buys too much truth is this world. I hope that you’re wrong; I hope that conversations like this will snowball and cause traditional organizations to provide both traditional and alternative resources. Thanks for the comment.

  • Matt, I’m really glad to hear that you found some receptive forums. I think that it’s always important to be able to look at the way that you view the world critically. It’s difficult to change views that are deeply ingrained; I remember being astounded the first time someone told me that they didn’t believe in the chemical imbalance theory. But that type of critical presence, both in discussion boards and in real life, is necessary for finding truth, even if it causes some heated conversations. Thanks for the read, and for the resources!