Monday, August 2, 2021

Comments by Frank Blankenship

Showing 100 of 3674 comments. Show all.

  • Very sad to hear of Paula Joan Caplan’s passing. We penned some pointed questions to the authors’ of the DSM-5 for MFI a few years back when they called for them. She was also a very powerful presence at many conferences I attended. Her absence will be deeply felt by many. I will certainly miss her. When we need voices critical of psychiatric battery more than ever, it’s sad to be minus another.

  • I don’t want to be divisive, so if there is a Mad Pride movement, count me in. I suppose I could say the same thing about some folk’s anti-Mad Pride movement if asked. Camouflage, after all, is sometimes a necessity.

    Um, the government is spending a lot of money on forced “mental health” torture, is it? Just think of what sort of a world we might have if they stopped spending so much on that sort of thing. Being tight lipped and secretive about the matter isn’t a spend thrift tactic in this case. I’d say that there are a lot of people that could be helped if we were to pressure the government to make a few changes.

    Thanks for making the case, David. I hope people are paying attention.

  • If I were to write an article it would be titled I’m So Bored With Mental Health. The Mental Health business is primarily concerned with selling “Mental Illness”. Think…Lobotomy, ECT, harmful drugs, endless talk, etc. Maybe this “Mental Illness” is a product I don’t really need (and by that I don’t mean “luxury”). Mental Health, on the other hand, is an abstraction. The only people who need Mental Health are those deemed to be Mentally Sick. When you don’t buy Mental Illness, you’re already there (i.e. mentally healthy). Of course, given guardians, ECT, radical brain surgery, bleeding, endless talk, etc., wising up can be a difficult undertaking. Any of those out there who aren’t wise to the system yet have my deepest sympathy. I hope you can come through it relatively intact, and by that I mean I hope you can manage to leave the system, and not in a body bag.

  • Added leverage for the CRPD can’t be a bad thing. Wiping up the mess caused by all these new fangled “mental ill health treatment” programs, on the other hand, on top of the violence of the more traditional approaches, is a little more problematic. I realize, however. that the service industry would be nowhere without the manufactured “need” that comes of labeling and treating “patients”, people being too strong a word to use in such a context, and not, of course, supported by law. Tell me, how do we get “the problem” to be a little–Okay, a lot!–less global. Much change, no doubt, would be, for lack of a better word, godsend.

  • The “mental illness/brain disease” lobby has expended a great deal of energy in selling it’s product. On top of this factor, and contributing, the drug industry has dramatically increased the number of chemical options available to people beyond that supplied by biology. The misinformation mill, as your article clearly demonstrates, is busily working overtime. People are seldom abandoned to their own devices after incarceration in the system any more, now they are tailed and badgered throughout the rest of their lives by the same system. As I pointed out recently, all you need to do to find out how bad things actually are is to google antipsychiatry sometime, and then just look at all the propsychiatry antiantipsychiatry items that come up. Opposition to torture and false imprisonment must be out there somewhere, and maybe you can find it if you try reading between the lines. Surely it is out there somewhere, and if you can’t find it, then I would highly recommend starting something on your own. After all, who knows what it could grow into. A lobby to supplant the one attached to the “mental illness/brain disease” industry? I don’t know? However much nonsense prevails, some of us keep hoping nonetheless.

  • There is, at the present time, a market demand for psychiatry. Boycott psychiatry, and that demand might shrivel and die, i.e. be defunded and defeated. (Seems like a reasonable goal to me.)

    “Suffer fools” rather than “correct” “treat” or institutionalize them. Tolerate them. Folly is human, and intolerance, particularly of folly, is an extension of the folly it would outlaw.

  • I don’t consider graduation from professional “mental patient” to para-professional “mental health worker” much of an improvement. I would tell both groups of people to abandon their fields of oppression, futility and victimization, and I would encourage them to get a life. That is, a life in a less nonsensical field. The same applies to “mental health professionals” in general.

  • Were Allen Frances to take on the prescribing of so called anti-depressants, benzos, and neuroleptics we might be getting somewhere. As is, he’s just another drug pushing doctor complaining about all those other doctors with his little under the counter drawer full of pills to pitch. Over prescribing in general is any prescribing. Of course, we could work on getting the percentage of people on this pill or that down to a more reasonable percentage. Allen Frances is, like, we should get people to stop prescribing this so much, except to people who really need it, and ditto this and this and this. I would argue that much of this need is imaginary and manufactured.

  • I’d agree if you changed the title of this article by one little prefix..How about, dot da dah, Grassroots Activism: De-thinking Psychiatry Builds Community? I’m not really keen on any community of abductors, prison warders. and torturers, or of haters in general, even if they’ve got abduction, imprisonment, and torture confused with “mental health care”, or, at least, any sort of “cure” for other examples of confused thoughts.

  • I don’t see anti-psychiatry as dogmatic. I don’t think there are enough people calling themselves anti-psychiatry to be dogmatic. I see psychiatry as something of an imposition, and, therefore, dogmatic. One is dogmatic for opposing psychiatry? Really? I don’t think so. Anti-psychiatry is a choice. Since when has psychiatry ever allowed freedom of choice. I don’t think they, that is, mental health workers and psychiatrists, are really keen on the idea of “suffering fools”. If they were, then they’d let people be.

  • Psychiatry, just like all “mental health work”, is a sickness. Look a little deeper and maybe you can find the “cure”. Excuse me, the “recovery”. “Recover” yourself from psychiatric profession disorder completely (some say “retire”), and we will all be better off.

  • If the increased use of the Baker Act on young people in Florida is any indication, I would say that there is little to deter forced mental health treatment from seeking young people. I mean if you have a quota to be reached, you’ve got the unwilling subjects to be victimized right at hand. Need I say more?

    Wrongs are going to occur so long as young people are not granted rights, and as with older people, the right to refuse dangerous, damaging and unwanted treatments is chief among them.

  • Your last lockup was in ’74! Geez, what are you scared of when it comes to using your own name? My first lockup was in ’73. Don’t think they want me any more though, and I’m happy for that. I’m not doing my best impersonation of Borat either though. Of course, I always got prescriptions, too. The secret is to ignore them. For appearance sake alone though, there is that matter of, uh, if anybody asks, yeah, putting on a good show. I know there are people who are pressured into taking drugs, when somebody is not spiking their food, but, to paraphrase, what they don’t know, won’t hurt you.

  • As far as titles go, Recovery Rate Six Times Higher For Those Who Stop Antipsychotics Within Two Years seems weak to me. How about something more along the lines of Mental Illness Synonymous With Antipsychotic Drug Use? Next question, whatever would recovery rates be like among people never started on antipsychotics in the first place? Unfortunately, it seems few professionals are brave enough to seriously consider the matter from that prospective yet.

  • I am in complete agreement with the conclusion of your article.

    “While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.”

    https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

    However different people are, the differences between any two of them are not so great as that between any one human and a chimpanzee, and as you can see, the genetic divide there is not so gargantuan as one might suppose. The respective talent or brilliance in one human compared to another is dependent on less than 0.1 % of one’s genome. Is that to say that it’s the development of acting skills, alternatively one might say diplomacy, that really matter? Yeah, that’s what I think.

  • I consider the “bio-psycho-social” model of psychiatry merely a rationalizing of the “biological” model of psychiatry that is so prevalent today. If psychiatrists didn’t believe in some version of the “chemical imbalance theory” they wouldn’t be damaging their client/patients by giving them harmful psychotropic drugs. One thing psychiatrists within the public mental health system seldom do, and I figure it would be done if they weren’t so thoroughly under the spell of the drug industry, is to allow client/patients the option of going without psychiatric drugs. Even the arguments Dr. Ronald Pies is trying to make that we doctors don’t really say that sort of flies in the face of the fact that regardless of what they say they really do that sort of thing (strive to control behaviors with drugs) all the time.

    I feel that the so-called “bio-psycho-social” model of treatment, in the main, is just more “bio-bio-bio” psychiatry trying to cover for itself.

    Thanks for disputing Dr. Pies claims and for generating discussion on the issue.

  • Psychiatry was my path to antipsychiatry, if by psychiatry you mean confinement, drugging, and torture. First it begins with this notion that a person needs “help” whether the so targeted person wants “help” or not. Then that more or less innocent person, seen as needing “help”, gets assaulted by swarms of toxic “helpers”. If by psychiatry you mean force, oppression, numbed minds, etc., then antipsychiatry must mean liberation, joy, and clarity. If madness, the thing the mental health overlords want to suppress, were to resemble a slave rebellion, I stand with Spartacus, I stand with Nat Turner, and I stand with Toussaint Louverture, give me madness any day of the week over slavery.

  • Although I’m not so optimistic all told, great article. The fight goes on.

    Celebrate Anti-Psychiatry? You betcha! Psychiatry has done a great deal of harm, and the sooner people wise up to it the better.

    The struggle against psychiatry is actually older than the profession proper, and it continues. I see celebrating this struggle as a very good thing indeed.

    I would never wish psychiatry on a friend. I don’t think anybody else would either. Psychiatry is one of those things you do to people you don’t like as a rule. Personally, I think the world needs more love, and less drugging, labeling, and imprisonment in the name of “medicine”.

    People who care for people don’t psychiatrize them. I wish the practice was going to end tomorrow, however, I don’t think it will end that easily. Conceiving of it’s end is a first step to getting there. I think eventually we might be able to pull the money rug out from under the feet of the psychiatric establishment, and when the oppressor is not paid, he (and/or she) is going to move onto something else.

    Boycott psychiatry and eventually it will dry up and die. Such a death will mean a better world for all, and with nothing “other worldly” about it.

  • Well, I believe there could be professional snake-oil salesmen, you know, only psychiatric drugs, the prime “treatment” provided by psychiatry, is worse than snake-oil. Psychiatric drugs, especially those for the most so-called severe of conditions, are harmful, and someone would qualify the matter by calling them potentially harmful, a relative statement, there are some substances you shouldn’t be taking over a long period of time on a regular basis. There must be a knack to drumming up business by making certain gullible people progressively sicker and sicker, and if they literally aren’t sick to begin with, well, they end up that way. I suppose someone should be slapping someone in the face with a bladder bag, but who do you slap? The tricksters or the tricked? Perhaps both. That’s the way I see it. Certainly there are better ways to be spending one’s time than in a fruitless pursuit of run-away trains. Some wrecks might be prevented, sure, but some are going to happen regardless. Wising up though is bound to beat dumbing down, especially when the present “mental ill health” industry is dumb to the core. It is…How do you say? Oh, yeah! Stupid.

  • Generally speaking, I was thinking that disease theory was chemical imbalance theory, but here Dr. Pies seems to be suggesting that there is another disease theory besides the chemical imbalance one. If psych drugs don’t “correct chemical imbalances”, what is it that they do correct, because bad life styles are a matter of ethics, not medicine, and of evasion. Bad decisions are bad decisions, and no amount of “treatment” is likely to magically transform them into good decisions. Suspecting a lack of control at the level of biology, with no chemical imbalance behind it, eh? Okay, what is behind this lack of control if not a “chemical imbalance”? Bad genes? And are they not another expression for “chemical imbalance”? I tend to see conscious decisions there, even if the conscious decision is a matter of wearing blinders.

  • Yes, Autism is over-diagnosed. We hardly know what it is, if anything.

    The “mental illness” identity? Really? I don’t identify as “mentally ill”, let alone with any particular brand of “off” labeling. The “sickness” (i.e. scapegoating) industry , unfortunately, will continue to operate regardless.

    The thing being sold is “treatment”, the diagnostic label goes along with the “treatment”, like love and marriage, or, perhaps, better, crime and prison. The “cure” is realism. While disease may be a social problem, social problems are not diseases.

  • Dorothy Dix’s reforms only came rather late within the context of reforms that actually drove the expansion of imprisonment in the name of “mental health”. I tend to think the real problem began with early privatization, that is, an effort to profit off the scapegraces of the rich and aristocratic coupled with additional opportunities to extend treatment, mistreatment really, of the poor and disenfranchised. Although the aim was more compassionate treatment the reality inevitably became something else entirely.

    I tend to agree with OldHead on this one. You need to be selling “distressed states of mind” if you’re going to get anywhere with selling “compassionate listening”, and the “distressed states of mind” industry, as ever, is booming.

  • This is where the idea that only psychiatrists should be writing the history of their profession is so ludicrous and vulnerable. Edward Shorter says as much, only psychiatrists should write the history of their profession, but we know objectivity comes from those with some emotional distance from the subject of any study. Not only, in other words, should we be talking back to power, we should be using science and history to expose the wrong actions taken by people in power. History as cover up is not good history.

  • We should be looking at the power and wealth disparities between different people in the country. Improvements would be seen in lessening these disparities I’m sure.

    It is easy for those “in power” to make snap judgments about those deprived of such power. Children are innocent, and by innocent I mean that they are even innocent of the illusion of “meritocracy”, and that they are therefor relatively innocent of the myriad deceptions that help maintain imbalanced and unfair social relationships.

  • Yeah, and I was talking about this “peer specialist” business as a “sick” form of careerism. I’ve got nothing against kindergarten teachers either. I just think that, at one point or another, it’s time to leave the rubber nipple behind. “Peer specialism” can, and is, in some circumstances, what one might refer to as a “serious attachment disorder”.

  • Invent a disease and you’ve got a fictive ailment (schizophrenia). For this fictive ailment, a very real drug induced disease (Parkinsons) can be seen as the “cure”, replete with further and more devastating damage in the form of Tardive Dyskinesia, and now they’ve got drugs for the disease created by the drugs. For a get rich scheme, these big pHarma exes really knew what they were doing, didn’t they?

    The real dope is, maybe you’d be better off thinking about doing something besides…dope.

  • How about the difference in health between patients prior to 65 years ago and patients today? For one thing, there had to be a great deal less chemically induced brain damage back then, and heart damage, etc. Of course, perhaps they made up for a little of it with lobotomies, radical brain surgery.

    I hope people begin to get the idea that if they are going to be treating people for “mental ill health conditions”, they shouldn’t be treating them to brain damage, or other and further impediments to good overall physical health. Degenerative ailments are, duh, not likely to improve “mental health” one iota.

  • Since when has the mandated imperative of “patients” become to become “nurses” rather than to “get well”, or, rather, since we are so bogged down in the “mental health” quagmire, to “get over it”. I personally feel that there are many of us who would be better off if there was no “mental health” quagmire to begin with.

    I have ethical qualms about the “peer support” survival strategy but for an entirely different reason. I would compare the “peer support para-profession” to the prison trustee system that rightly was dispensed with a few years back.

    “The “trusty system” (sometimes incorrectly called “trustee system”) was a penitentiary system of discipline and security enforced in parts of the United States until the 1980s, in which designated inmates were used by prison staff to control and administer physical punishment to other inmates according to a strict, prison-determined, inmate hierarchy of power.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusty_system_(prison)

    The idea of becoming a lifer in the “mental health” quagmire just doesn’t appeal to me in the slightest. I would like to think that it was possible, indeed permissible, for people to exit the “mental health” quagmire, at one time or another, if they so chose. If fortunes, or rather, misfortunes, can’t change, well, we’re lost anyway, aren’t we? I’d prefer to think that fortunes can, do, and will change instead.

  • The new normal goes something like this: We are selling psychiatric conditions via their treatments (i.e. you need a diagnosis for a treatment). These treatments to manage the psychiatric conditions that go along with the treatments are drug treatments. Long term psychiatric drug use (our sole form of treatment) causes brain damage. Not to worry, we have more drugs to help you manage the brain damage you received from taking our pharmaceuticals. Come off pharmaceuticals? Perish the thought!

    If you’ve seen the recent ads on television promoting TD management, you know we’ve got a problem. How does one get TD? By taking psychiatric drugs. Whether consciously or not, the promotion of TD (brain damage) management drugs is not likely to cause any decrease in psychiatric labeling and the drugging that goes along with it. Quite the reverse. This phenomenon is likely to cause an increase in labeling, drugging, and the brain damage that goes along with them. We have to sell our brain damage management drugs after all, too.

    I’d say that perhaps we need to reconsider the old normal sometime, huh? Is selling a drug to treat the brain damage you got from taking a drug for some psychiatric condition of a dubious authenticity and nature really progress? I think not.

    Thank you for writing this piece. I cringe every time I see the advertisements advertising TD management drugs on television which is about every day of the week now. I’d say, given the massive impending tragedies that are certain to occur as a result, we need to do whatever we might to return ourselves to a more life form compatible, and less harmful, normal.

  • I had a professor object to me talking before the classroom once because what I had to say was seen by him, of course, as anecdotal. I feel certain that if we could have a few of these academics thrown into the loony bin for an extended period of time, they might begin to change their tunes. This kind of science, however, presents us with a complicated challenge. The elite knows, of course, designing the studies, while everybody else is talking through both sides of their mouths. I look up the nostrils that say see my importance and your own utter insignificance. I don’t see it though. In the somebody versus nobody dispute, any big number is made up of a lot of smaller numbers. I really don’t think the guy was as big and powerful (shades of Oz) as apparently he thought he was. Oh, well, such is hubris. I’d call it a variation on a theme, “Everything about you, without you.”

  • “Us” (psychiatrists) versus “them” (critics of psychiatry), huh? Ronald Pies is anything but impartial. He has made it his task to defend his profession. Doing so, he ends up defending the indefensible. He and his are so implicated in the excessive drugging of psychiatric inmates it’s not, if it ever was, funny. Certainly non-psychiatrists might be able to develop a more balanced view of this phenomenon than it’s most virulent adherents and converts. Pies wants us to excuse psychiatry and blame the drug companies, but we know what’s going on here. The drug companies would be nowhere without their # 1 pill pushers, in a nutshell, psychiatrists.

    The theological arguments are also a bit distressing. Science under the rule of religion? Really?! Do your “soul healers” actually have any “soul”? I dunno…What is the fraction of an ounce or so change between life and death? Not much. Captain Kirk and crew are still in the dark when it comes to meeting any supreme deity in their travels. We’ve got, nonetheless, metaphysical physicians, certainly a contradiction in terms, to do his bidding here on earth. If they aren’t, as so many people are, out to deceive as many people as possible about their real aims in the process.

    Great article, Dr. Hickey. Keep ’em coming.

  • 22 states out of 50! This dearth of knowledge is appalling. Psychiatric power and secrecy must walk hand in hand. When people’s lives are, as they so often are in commitment cases, at stake, there should be more accountability for sure.

    If we weren’t dealing with a basically unwanted population, we wouldn’t be having this problem. The power disparity is great, and the control factor intimidating.

    Thank you for this report. Certainly conditions cannot be improving substantially when the commitment rates are increasing with such rapidity.

  • I don’t like the term “insane medicine” in a title. For one, “insane” is derived from the Latin for “unhealthy”. “Sick medicine” is an oxymoron. It’s much like the term “mental illness”, something of an abstraction.

    Scientism though certainly deserves criticism, and the “mental disease” industry itself is definitely a result of scientism. By scientism I mean the religion of science. Science begins with skepticism, and it ends where that skepticism is discarded. Belief in science? Science isn’t a belief, it’s a method for getting at the truth. Indifferent truth that doesn’t rely on belief.

  • Peer services are a double standard and a deception at the same time. I didn’t sign on to be a “sick fuck”, nor a “sick fuck helper”, and I especially didn’t sign on for a life term of doing such. Suspend “the age of consent” as much as you wish to, there is a problem with doing so. For one, it is preferable simply to grow up. Suspending weaning is indicative of attachment issues. This eternal ward of the state business is not to my liking one iota. Peerless services, there you go, only you’re not going to get nannie state services for non-wusses. Toughen up, and you’ve got everybody thinking, why didn’t I think of that.

  • Soteria could be considered the successor to Kingsley Hall. Sometime before I’d ever entered an institution as a “patient” in quotation marks, I was blown away by R. D. Laing’s book The Politics of Experience (1967). I’d always had the idea that I would have preferred to have had the option of residending in a place like Kingsley Hall or Soteria House, call it a therapeutic community, or a commune, or what you will, to that of being tortured and imprisoned in a conventional psychiatric setting, or worse, say, a state institution, and having experienced both of the latter to excess, I still feel that way.

    The Laing and Cooper experiments did have their casualties, and it was very good that Loren Mosher saw the virtue in applying a few corrective measures. I guess that’s why the effort persists to this day. Hopefully it can meet with more and greater success in the future.

    I am looking forward to hearing this talk.

  • If the counter cultural revolution has ended, we are now engaged in, if not actively struggling against, the counter revolution, a moment of political and social stagnation and regression.

    “I do not see myself as an anti-psychiatrist, either. Anti-psychiatry is [a] label used against critics as an easy way to silence them and ignore uncomfortable facts.”

    I do see myself as an antipsychiatrist. I don’t see antipsychiatry as a label. I see it as an attitude or a position. The “cure” for “mental illness” is the cessation of treatment services, treatment services occurring under the governing auspices of the profession of psychiatry.

    “I’m not anti-psychiatry; I am anti-bad-psychiatry and believe it’s my responsibility to call it out wherever I see it.”

    I recognize that some approaches work better than others, and that psychiatrists are not, to put it bluntly, the root of all evil or the offspring of the devil. I’m also not going to tell people how to spend their money if they want to spend it on a visit to the psychiatrist. Maybe it is something that will serve this or that individual. I personally have no stake in the “mental ill health” world, and so I have no stake in “buying and selling” therapies.

    On aspect 5 of your central philosophical franework: “How a problem once established perpetuates itself in a process I call “the problem becomes the problem.””

    This established problem is perpetuated, not because it remains a problem, but because the problem no longer remains the problem. The problem, in other words, has become the product.

    Where would all the “people fixers” be without “broken people”? Out of business I would imagine.

  • Rather than perpetually bitch about one’s fate. I think it’s a good idea to celebrate one’s fate, too. All is not bad, all is not lost, not so long as we don’t want it to be anyway. We could throw a big party. Why not? Certainly not because there are all these party poopers, slackers, and such sorts out there. They can do what they want. We could call such a celebration Unique Human Being Pride Day if you want, but it’s one way of doing something, and saying I’m alright at the same time. Libeled or not (the cuter way of saying labeled), I’m alright. How about you?

  • Proper English, OldHead. It isn’t everybody who has your personal history, nor is it everybody who has an inkling of what you’re talking about. I wouldn’t use the expression psychiatry survivors of antipsychiatry either. We say psychiatric survivors for the same reasons that you’ve got rape survivors and disaster survivors, and I don’t, by the way, equate antipsychiatry with rape or disaster.

    Destroying the institution and saving people, particularly children, from it IS a big concern for today, and something we definitely need to be doing everything in our power to bring about.

  • People are treated differently for being different. If everybody were the same what a boring world we would have. Some people have been put in institutions for being different. “Mad” is a term I use for these people, such as yours truly, who have been perceived as different. One could call it proud of being different, often in the face immense odds and opposition. That would work. So does Mad Pride.

  • Anti-psychiatry survivors? There you go again! That’s an expression I would never use. I’ve had no problem surviving antipsychiatry, even if I hope it survives me. I don’t feel threatened by it in the slightest. (E. Fuller Torrey, of course, feels differently. Reagan and antipsychiatry, specifically, deinstitutionalization, shutting down the big state asylums, being in his eyes perceived as very damaging to the system, and its minions.) Psychiatry, on the other hand, is a little more problematic.

  • Rather than opposing disease centred to drug centred treatments, I’d like to see more non-drug-centred treatments.

    You say, “I am not opposed, in principle, to the use of psychiatric drugs. I believe, as I say in the book, that “some psychiatric drugs do help some people in some situations.””

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. I would however say, “I am absolutely opposed, in principle, to the use of psychiatric drugs on this particular person.”

    When I first found myself in the psychiatric prison pretending to be hospital that I found myself in, I wasn’t given a choice in the matter. I took their drugs because otherwise I’d get the same drugs through a syringe, under more constricting conditions.

    I learned to submit, and, eventually, I got out. I don’t think the choice, when it comes to dangerous substances, should ever be taken away from the person, or persons, being so substance abused. We’ve had non-drug treatments for some time now. Witness the Soteria Project approach to first time freak outs. I’d like to see more non-drug centred approaches to treatment, even if they occurred within the context of the traditionally oppressive “hospital” environment. At least, it would be something beyond a perpetually drug numbing daze, and the possibility of a drug induced “mental ill health chronicity”. The idea that anyone should be put on these substances for 20, 30, 40, etc., years, and more, without relief, is ludicrous.

  • Great point about the D in PTSD. I think the same applies to GAD, and all the so-called neuroses as well. Disorder, like disease, goes with the labeling, or rather, the insulting process. In fact, the more serious the disorder, the more serious the insult, which may go some ways to explaining something fundamental about the difficulties in recovering the so-called “seriously affected” face. Sure, words are used to communicate, the same words that are used to intimidate, isolate and destroy. Once you get pushed to the wrong side of the counter so-to-speak, the question becomes how do you return to, how do the doctors phrase it? Oh, yeah. Functionality.

  • Society is going to react where someone puts their rational logical self on hold, or in suspense. It’s not always a good just society that does so you know. I like the word mad because it’s a pre-medical-model word. When mad becomes “sick”, it’s kind of difficult to avoid the fact that you’re dealing with a mixed metaphor, an abstraction, nonsense, unreality. Uh, an actual decision. However, no amount of reasoning is going to make everybody reasonable all the time. People have flaws, and sometimes they are better off for them. For all the praise given to reason, it would be unreasonable to outlaw madness AKA folly altogether. Folly, after all, is something we are all innocent of on one occasion or another. In other words, I don’t think it’s an us and them dichotomy that the word mad feeds.

  • Powerful article, Ted. People give a lot of lip service to caring about kids, and then, whoops, that big communication gap, the nut house. So much for that concern. Destruction happens, and even death. Thanks for writing this piece. I hope it does some good.

  • I don’t have a problem supporting movements. Progressive movements, that is, and I see Mad Pride as progressive. I can see working in and with the Mad Pride Movement easily. I don’t, however, want to have anything to do with the Mental Health Movement. To people involved in such a movement, all I can say is, “mental” this.

    You go sell you maltreatments elsewhere. I don’t want any.

  • Don’t get “mad” but I wouldn’t say “Mad Pride” substitutes the term “mad” for “mentally ill”, quite the reverse. People have been calling people “mad” for a few centuries now. They only got around to calling the same sort of people “mentally ill” (i.e. “medicalization”) fairly recently.

    I haven’t heard of any “Mad Superiority” movement, but if there were one, I’d be all for it. Certainly, there are people suffering from a surfeit of what could be described as “normality”, or “ordinariness”, or “average-ness”, or drabness, take your pick. Boringly normal is, if nothing else, bo-ring.

    I don’t know that it would be reactionary to recognize people who experience difficulties in life. If I remember correctly, reaction often becomes a matter of prejudging, dismissing, and killing such people. Such mistreatment is taking place even when that reaction is trying to confuse people by employing the rhetoric of revolution.

  • Caution suggested when using. A tab of LSD may result in a relapse of psychedelic experience. However, I digress.

    I worry about people being too slow in their tapering. I know of a few people now who aren’t tapering, probably because they think they can’t. Instead their answer to “sleep disorder” AKA insomnia, drug or stress induced, has become Seroquel.

    The best treatment for psych-drug damage is not to put people on them in the first place. Obviously, drugs are not going to deal with whatever problem it is that a person may be having living life, striving, thriving, jiving, or whatever.

    You can’t get it, maybe, sure, but you CAN get a drug.

  • Institutional psychiatry, the so-called public “mental health” system, needs abolition. Getting people out of jails and prisons was the same lame excuse which brought on the psychiatric prison system, and expanded it, in an infinitely chronic direction, in the first place. People tend to be, however, freer in punitive institutions than in “medical” ones–so long as force is the order of the day. The poor houses and work shops of yesterday are long gone, but not so the psychiatric plantation system. Tear the fake hospital/real prisons down, and let people be. Tolerance begins at home.

  • Changing the state means changing the people in it, and, sure, if you can.

    You seem to think you can convince everyone to disregard psychiatry. I have serious doubts about your power of persuasion in that case. This social agreement that you look for (to scrap the psychiatric) hasn’t taken place in 300 years or thereabouts. I’m all for getting rid of institutional psychiatry, and institutional as opposed to private practice. I don’t think we can get rid of it without enacting legislation against it. In other words, without some kind of decree, I don’t see it happening.

  • I’d like to think we were evolving in the same direction, OldHead, but I still have a problem with any call to “abolish psychiatry”. My call would rather be for the abolition of forced treatment. Psychiatry and forced treatment are not synonymous. They are not synonyms. I see forced treatment as the real problem, and not psychiatry so much, by definition.

    I think that any call to abolish psychiatry confuses the issue and creates a red herring. I’m not saying, by any means, that psychiatry isn’t a false science. I’m saying that, false or not, I wouldn’t be legislating away one’s freedom of practice it. Again, the problem for me is not quack doctors, the problem is force, coercion.

    Get rid of the force, to put it more simply, and psychiatry has not the power that it has today, a power to force itself on people who don’t want it and would choose not to be so insulted, abused and humiliated.

    I don’t see my position as pro-psychiatry. It’s just the slant is different. I’m not selling psychiatry, but I’m not outlawing it either. I think that’s the only way you’re going to get rid of it. By outlawing it. Coercive treatments (mistreatments really), on the other hand, those I would outlaw. One has to bend the law to indulge in them in the first place, in my view anyway.

  • The snake oil salesmen are at it again. Their snake oil, regrettably, consists of toxic substances, imprisonment and talk. No. I’m not buying.

    I get increasingly disgusted with a corruption that supports a chronic imaginary disease industry as time advances. I don’t think anyone need waste their life as a professional mental patient. People have better things to be doing with their time. Conversion to the “mental illness” faith does not represent a viable worthwhile direction for the country, or a significant proportion of it, to be taking as far as I’m concerned.

    Dr. Shedler had some good points to make. Not so, Pies and Ruffalo. Gratefully Phil Hickey is there to set matters straight. The best defense being a good offense, lets hear a big cheer for anti-psychiatry go up around the world. Black Lives Matter. So do mad lives. Should Trump send federal forces in, our position can only improve.

  • Radical psychiatry is a contradiction in terms. Only anti-psychiatry is radical. Ditto, anti-fascism and anti-racism.

    Psychiatry is mentalist/sanist by definition. Small wonder that it is racist to boot.

    “Mental illness” is a metaphor, not a fact. The “cure” is, was, and always will be cessation of “treatment”, especially when that “treatment” consists primarily of pretense, confinement, injury, and torture.

    Drugs are drugs and, to one degree or another, toxic substances. Drugs include psychiatric so-called medications. Drugs are not medicine.

    Acting under the assumption that thinking clearly is as important as reading, writing and arithmatic, the way out of our current “mental health crisis” is through mandating courses in logic for all students in the public education system. When people are taught to think logically, they will be less prone to think illogically.

  • Corruption in psychiatry starts with the mother tongue. Bodily organs develop illnesses, minds don’t develop illnesses. I caught a cold, in other words, is more correct than I caught a fear of other people (i.e. agoraphobia). People don’t choose to catch a common cold, however, there must be more choice involved in the contagious quality of agoraphobia. Evasions of personal responsibility, hmm, I think we’ve got an out here that psychiatry, “mental health” policing authorities anyway, have been responsible, in an irresponsible manner of course, for promoting.

    Just imagine, thinking one has a disease when one doesn’t have a disease has become an excuse for the prescription of toxic, and often addictive, chemicals. I don’t imagine taking such chemicals is going to make anybody think they don’t have an imaginary disease, if such thinking be “health”.

  • I recently ran into someone with a conspiracy theory to explain corona-virus. I generally think in the opposite direction, that is, “mental illness” = fictive (i.e. fraudulent) illness, corona-virus = real (i.e. authentic) illness. Another way to put it is to say that either illness is physical or it is not illness. The idea that people panicking over corona virus have some kind of “mental illness” doesn’t appeal to me so much. Hypochondria may be encouraged by the “mental health” coppers on “normality” patrol, but one ought to know better than to go along with such nonsense. Tolerance is the word. We’re waiting for black people mattering, and then maybe we can make mad people matter a little bit more, too.

  • Frantz Fanon was a victim of his own time, in the sense that any man of his time is also a victim of that time, a time that believed mutilating brains with ice picks was a healing treatment. The confusion that came of brain damaging treatments was thought to be beneficial in sort of fashioning new beginnings. *cough, cough* Beyond that aspect of the matter, I think he also helped come up with a solution.

  • I wouldn’t call decolonialism a non-answer however you want to translate it. I think he was just trying to be realistic concerning some of the complexities in throwing off the yoke of western imperialistic rule. Tribalism, after all, helped fuel the slave-trade in its day. Fanon’s treatment, as I understood it, was to direct that anger outward against the source of it that had been directed inwardly at the victim of such exploitation.

  • I’m not against caring, the problem is that some people are going to do some things that will get them in trouble. Then what? Then “therapy”? You get my drift…There are probably some people who shouldn’t be handed over to the police. Once they are, well, the cycle is complete, isn’t it? Now how do we ware out the cycle so-to-speak. They weren’t handed over to the police because somebody cared, and then they get “therapy”, but not because somebody cared enough to prevent it. Where does it end? All too often it doesn’t.

  • “Therapy” or “technique”, it’s still part of the “treatment” industry. If it weren’t “therapy”, why would it have “therapy” in its acronym, its moniker? So now we have these two “treatment” modes, doing incredible business, more damaging “treatments” and less damaging “treatments”. I would suggest a third venue is also available, and that is non-treatment. Early or late, some people find non-treatment most “helpful” of all, and reason enough for retirement from the career “mental patient”, or career “mental patient” minder, business.

  • We need more collective actions! Duh!

    We are the 100,000 %. I really enjoyed normality screening, David. I’d like to see more of that kind of thing taking place. I think the red nose suits me. I wouldn’t mind donning a wig to match. Perhaps if we opened a Non-Normal Academy we could engineer the kind of world we want to see. Normality is a symptom of intolerance, and that is certainly something that the world doesn’t need an excess of.

    That’s a fine looking support team you have there. If the rest of us had something like that, how could we lose? I’d like to see more resistance to the system organized on a massive scale, and for that kind of thing to take off, we’re going to have to work together as a team.

    The turtle and the hare, yeah, that sort of thing. With the right strategy, the future is ours. We could work on applying strategy a little.

  • Diagnosis shifter, eh? That’s a good one. Are you a wereschizophrenic, or a dual genus lifeform (AKA bi-polar)? Or are you just an amorphous diagnosis shifter? And, no, medical doctors don’t have anything to do with that sort of thing whatsoever. It’s all *cough, cough* about the “science”.

  • There is this long running false narrative that I have to applaud you for punching holes in. I remember this soviet dissident in the news, a while back of course, complaining about the TD he got while in a special psychiatric unit. He thought it was OK to give the stuff (psych drugs) to people who were “sick” but “normal” people like himself should have been spared. (Um, curious. Did he mean that antipsychotics, so-called, aren’t good for non-psychotics?) Eventually the laundry has to be aired. There’s a reason intelligent, non-disturbed, people don’t take neuroleptic drugs as a rule. I’m not sure there’s a real reason why silly and confused people stomach them, except perhaps, under the duress of non-peer pressure. Our ability to suffer fools, officially designated fools anyway, has not increased appreciably over time. Neuroleptic drugs kill, and you want to be a little discrete about whom you choose to off in such a fashion.

  • “The article is called The lure of “cool” brain research is stifling psychotherapy. The central theme is that prior to 1990, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) “appreciated the need for a well-rounded approach [to mental health] and maintained a balanced research budget that covered an extraordinarily wide range of topics and techniques.” However, since 1990, the opening year of the Decade of the Brain, the NIMH has “increasingly narrowed its focus almost exclusively to brain biology—leaving out everything else that makes us human, both in sickness and in health.””

    The premise mentioned above is false. Absolute nonsense.

    Allen Frances, architect of the disastrous DSM 1V, has managed to keep his name in the spotlights by pretending to be the chief critic of the DSM V. Allen Frances however is still very much more a part of the problem than he ever will be part of the solution. There were critics of the system prior to Allen Frances even if those critics had nothing whatsoever to do with the DSM IV.

    I would contrast with Allen Frances example that of Loren Mosher. Far from showing themselves open to new ways of thinking, the NIMH, way before 1990, shut his Soteria Project down by pulling the money out from under it and, more or less, gave him the pink slip for not pushing psychiatric drugs they way they thought he ought to have done.

    Gee, so the NIMH wasn’t so open minded before 1990 after all?

    Yep, that’s right. The NIHM has always been, it would seem, very close minded.

    Nice illusion, but no blue ribbon. Psychotherapists are widely known for their drug pushing proclivity anyway.

  • I think the forced treatment (psychiatric institution) abolition movement and the chattel slavery abolition movement are intimately connected, and if we got rid of one oppressive system, we certainly haven’t gotten rid of the other…yet.

    In Virginia, Central and Western State Hospitals weren’t integrated until about 1967 or thereabouts, and primarily because of the struggle to integrate the educational system. In the Jim Crow south then, not only were swimming pools, restaurants, and schools segregated, but so were psychiatric hospitals.

    Today you have this epidemic in so called “mental health” issues because locking people up engendered an industry that can’t survive without ‘customers’. Stop locking people up, and maybe we can start “curing” some of the “service providers”, the “treatment” salespeople, the real culprits behind our current epidemic. Of course, in order to do so, it would help if we could do also something about the drug industry, an industry that also benefits from psychiatric slavery, torture and imprisonment.

  • Hospital is perhaps an even less appropriate word to use for psychiatric detention centers than asylums. These people, our prisoners, are, goes conventional wisdom, guilty, in the absence of any crime, of misbehaving, so if we treat them as “sick” eventually we will get them to “behave”. Such is the hope of the mental health (sic) enforcement community anyway.

  • I would not call psychiatric institutions of today asylums. Such was an illusion created way back when, but it never had much to do with reality. People are, as a rule, just as in the case of other prisons, safer outside of their walls. The use of the term asylum is a result of the paternalism behind the effort to expand such institutions, “our imprisonment, torture, etc., of you is for your own good”, a paternalism that is still with us. Institutional confinement, the “asylum” system, would have had a much harder time expanding if it were not couched in the terminology of, as it is today, “care”. The kind of “care” that gives one pause to express such sentiments as “with friends like these who needs enemies”.

  • Yeah, I don’t know about saying Schizophrenia, Depression, and Bipolar are real while ADHD and BPD are, say, imaginary, or not so real. I think the lot of them are pretty much garbage.

    One could say this or that person has more major problems than this or that other person, but then how seriously do we need to “treat” such problems? The more deeply the person is involved in “treatment”, the deeper he or she tends to sink into the trash.

  • I’ve been off psychiatric drugs for the past twenty years

    I wasn’t really on them before that because I wasn’t going to take them “voluntarily”.

    I haven’t taken any psychiatric drug since the last time I was discharged from the “hospital”.

    It can be done. One just needs to register the fact that these chemicals aren’t good for you, and that they are more likely to harm you than to “heal” you, and that they can, in fact, even kill you.

    “Mental health” may be a scam, but dope is still dope, and dope isn’t good for your health.

  • FACT teams in this country (the USA) have been mainly about insuring that “patients” were compliant with treatment plans (i.e. drugged to the gills or institutionalized). I feel sorry for so-called peers that would support that kind of thing however I know that Open Dialogue operates along different lines, and any “alternative” to the current FACT team approach, some kind of policing function, has got to be an improvement. A FACT team that I could work with rather than against in the interests of saving the “patient’s” health from certain detriment, and his or her freedom from certain deprivation? Yeah, that I’d like to see.

  • I think you have a point, Steve. Namely, medicalization, the selling of “mental disorders” and their “treatments” has escalated, as has, what goes along with it, the numbers of “patients”. I figure corporatocracy has a lot to do with it. On the one hand, women can get work in the field, on the other, they’d be working in the wrong field (i.e. the labeling, drugging, and oppression of “mental patients”). Liberation!? Let’s get back to that. Yeah!

    Congratulations on the book, Lucas. This looks like one I could be reading. In recent years there has been a reaction against the movements of the recent past. I’m all for counter cultural revolution. No regrets. It’s high time we rehabilitated the times that made yours truly.

  • No length of imprisonment is going to make people well who weren’t sick in the first place.

    Neither will any amount of federal subsidy provide the basic necessity of, plain and simple, the avenue to financial independence, purposeful labor, a job.

    Nor will any amount of drugging (intoxicating pollutants) produce sobriety (sanity).

    That’s the big three when it comes to what’s been done that shouldn’t have been done. The obverse of the big three shouldn’ts would be the big three shoulds. Something along the lines of liberty, industry, and health–physical health.

  • I find the people who write this kind of thing, that is, rationalizing, if limply, the asylum system, very disturbing. I think such people ought to be confined to an asylum until such a time as they recover from such delusional beliefs, or die, whichever comes first.

    “We found no evidence that people were admitted for “social deviance” such as having illegitimate children, political activity, or petty crime.”

    We found no such evidence of people being admitted for social deviance except in so far as they were “raving,” “incoherent,” “delusional”; singing, shouting or praying inappropriately, or being, given another leap to judgment (and no due process to boot) unable to care for themselves allegedly.

    Social is not, to my way of thinking, a form of disability.

    The successful selling of “mental illness” and it’s “treatment” in the 1990s, over the 1890s, has led to a population explosion of people deemed to be so “afflicted”. This population boom, in combo with the closing of the old places of incarceration, has led to the opening of many mini-institutions, as well as more subtle methods of social coercion, indoctrination, management and control of deviant populations. Who needs a full time staff when you’ve got ankle bracelets and neuroleptic drugs?

    Okay, so maybe we’re not there yet, but given time, robotics is sure to take up the slack. Ready, aim, tazer!

    I disagree, obviously. We’ve in the past seen at least two great increases in the mental patient population. The first came with the development of the huge asylums you speak of, and the second came with the advent of social welfare and psychiatric drugs. If you want sanity, you’re going to have to put things in reverse, and then fast forward to before there were any “great” asylums. Lesson learned, we still don’t need them.

  • As I see it, same thing in the USA, peer support *cough, cough* being seen as the gateway into a job in mental health work, often involving attaining a degree in psychology, the vast majority of these careerists are not, and I must emphasis this point, all that critical of their profession. If they were, their career aims would be different. Career aims that criticism puts at risk, and threatens, on top of which there is that old “peer” pressure to be as obsequious as possible.

  • With psychiatric patient/consumers either clients of or workers in the system, sometimes both, where are the jobs that would give them a life anywhere else? How do we cure people, in other words, of the provision and the procurement of psychiatric bondage in one form or another? This artificial “neediness” and “learned helplessness” that has become so prevalent and burdensome.

    I remember when we were a liberation movement. *sigh*