Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Comments by Teresa Rudgley

Showing 7 of 7 comments.

  • Thank you to all the people who have commented above. Certainly a tragedy shared has been helpful. I find I thirst for open dialogue on ways in which peers and family can find common ground as a means to strengthen the impetus for change. IT’s a funny thing that this world is changing so rapidly but psychiatry is stuck in a time warp, and the institutions and people within them stay stuck. Just like the freaked out animal cornered in a trap, fear based practice continues; the broken record. I do wonder that if we all, en masse, just said “NO!” when confronted with labels and drugs, what would happen? (We would need to be trained in how to physically protect our loved ones). Direct action at the coal face.
    1. Always go to psych interviews with at least two other support people.
    2. Be prepared to stand up and walk out.
    3. State your position clearly and decisively.
    4. Have your decision on paper and legally endorsed ahead of your interview.
    5. Draw up your recovery plan and have a copy ready for your doctor.
    6. Should he choose not to endorse it, leave the room and find someone who will.
    Am I just dreaming?

  • Hot anger i get but explain cold anger if you will.
    Yes i too found a salve in putting blame where the harm was being perpetrated and agree that society colludes in maintaining this paradigm. But somehow we don’t move past the blame. Anger consumes us and deflects our energy and change alludes us.
    So replacing anger and blame by redirecting our energy away from that which harms towards that which heals is a task we all in this MIA community must accept.
    Psychiatry persists because we, survivors, families, friends are distracted by the cannons on the battlefield, (what terrible thing are they doing now?). Our attention should be focussed on the destination, peer respite and self determination. Let’s all do everything we can to point others in that direction. Stuff the enemy! Let them shoot themselves out of a job.

  • Thank you for this important discussion, one that is central to the push for a change away from medical intervention in psychological distress. Human rights law is ignored constantly by psychiatry here in NZ and there is not a single place one can go to get accountability for this, even though NZ is has ratified the CRPD Optional Protocol. Someone said to me that even if NZ Mental Health Law was brought into line with Human Rights it wouldn’t change clinical practice, (they are a law unto themselves). So if psychiatry is unwilling to acknowledge iatrogenic harm, and critique of this is labelled anti psychiatry I have to question what power the International CRPD really has to bring a country to account for abuses to its citizens? Whoever has drummed up this term ‘anti psychiatry’ is only doing so to malign those that point out the harm caused. I see it as the same process behind the term ‘anti-vax’ which is being used as a powerful vilification of anyone who questions the safety of vaccinations.

  • It’s true. That I have made things worse by voicing my concerns was a reality very hard to learn. And I don’t think the clinicians would ever trust me if I started agreeing with them. I also wonder if Tama would wonder which is story and which is truth. It messes with my head so I stay out of it at Tama’s request. For him they have said he won’t leave until he accepts clozapine

  • I agree danzig666, prescribing is based on an ideology that the brain is causing the ‘issues’. But it is mind, our thoughts, our stories that we habitually run and re run and create our suffering. You cannot drug that away. Working from a psycho/spiritual, or existential position we understand that as social animals human behaviours, feelings and thoughts come out of psychosocial and spiritual interactions with ‘the group dynamic’, we do not operate as isolated individuals. I refuse to accept the ideology of assuming it is our responsibility to relieve another’s ‘suffering’ through ‘interventions’ and ‘doing to’ such as prescribing drugs, since we know this paradigm is founded on a theory without substance and manipulates the client into a powerless role, (eg, ‘you don’t have the capacity to work this out or live with this within yourself’). Throw that out the window. Start first from the basis of mind sovereignty or mana (Maori word) , that is, do not assume the right to impose your views and strategies on another.
    I like Peter Breggin’s approach, if a client comes to him and wants drugs he tells them to find someone prepared to prescribe. He fully understands the implications of facilitating his clients down that black hole, for himself as well as for his client. It becomes a choice between professional integrity and full responsibility to your client or to collude with a harmful ideology.