Saturday, August 24, 2019

Comments by travailler-vous

Showing 623 of 623 comments.

  • Hi Kelly, I run out of time to peruse your articles, but always get back to the gist of your purposes and philosophy of care in my own favor when things get most personal. Of course, this is the debate process all around for other folks publishing their encounters and theories often enough and I have to admit the fact every time! That said, I just wanted to say one basic thing regarding some of your first introduced points of departure on alternative, holistic views on recovery.

    Reductive takes on history and sociology of behavioral healthcare can vary and stick to certain “developmental trait selections” as much as the people who cause adhesion to their virtually apocryphal character and subspecies their arrangements lead to us in outpatient support settings. Years and years of unsorted dead weight on the front burners of half-hearted (“undecided” patient vs. chemotherapist intestate questioner- advocates) critics like we have too many of, so far. Thanks for keeping it very realistic and for the economy of your approach to the series of debates that constitute the field from your vantage point on our usually gratutious and soporrific care options.

  • Hi Frank, Have you ever read some explanation applied to inferences and structured arguments, so that you ran across the term “this explains too much at once”…? This is pretty much the crosshairs of your various forays into cause and effect, proof and disproof, iconoclasm, etc.

    I am sort of getting affected by everyone’s separate disposition in equal measure. Did enjoy your caveats and “medicine show” run through of how bad notions are infectious, again.

  • Thanks, Lauren. I was wondering about this constant and undeniable malfeasance, the truly unoriginal, unAmerican, and unmedical nature of this stupidity, the new lady doctor who is riding high in the saddle to support her stupid promotion of ECT, etc.

    This seems clear: we survivors know that we sometimes have faced real problems with the reliability of our perceptions, our levels of energy and concentration, our clarity and sense of purpose, or further on battles with confidenc and episodic or longstanding incapacitation. We try to see who can help, and find more advertisers than healers, more quacks than normal doctors, more henchman than careful nurses. The whole situation is altogether disgusting, still.

    Maybe we should think about trying to decide how problems in living (or perhaps mental problems, if we speak very generally) can resolve into specific patterns so that we can work with levels of concrescence, ineptitude, and incapacitation, but not “front the label” or take psych drugs “under oath”. I mean just use them as seems wise and responsible or good to experience for ourselves, as we could determinately have enjoyed some relief or help from them in something like PRN doses.

    That’s just context, though, because what I want to say is that mental dysfunction, behavioral dysfunction, and neurological dysfunction and gross malfeasance are rampant in the care providers and regulators much more than ever. They are such obvious losers, who just themselves can’t settle into tracks for discussing their own issues and then share the information with everyday people who might not like to become so involved with the industry, but want it good for the needs it supposedly cares to address.

    All you can find across the country in these professions are people who cluster together with their bizarre personal hang-ups, get totally self-involved, and then gravitate to expanding the police state atmosphere, enlisting the typically hoodwinked and unenlightened among law enforcement, the elitist and bigoted among the judiciary, all manner of self-absorbed idealists who have their one-size fits all philosophies and no other way of life in mind. Complete and total moral cowards and religious hypocrites, failures and busybodies, impolite and passive-aggressive plebes is what these AMA suck-ups and abusers are.

  • Jay,

    You’ve got good territory assigned to the needs and purposes of this feminist take on relating facts to material differences, and coming out of the forays one fast swoop at a time. I mean, of course, that you stand to represent sanity for how it splinters and announces the turning point in emerging viewpoints, mindful of however they have unhelpfully turned in upon themselves and started into aggrandizing points of commonality much too soon. Since you invite thematic takes on all the “vital signs” you detect, and let the diagnoses roll off the tip of your tongue, you definitely have issued your very articulate challenge and stung hard at the middle of the rollicking fanatical insiders.

  • Hi Dr. Brogan,

    Your refinement of approaches to terms and their referents is getting polished up, alright. And I hope it is paying in your private experiences, so you might keep determining the sticking points involved in getting difficult folks to accept responsibility for the things that happened to themselves, already. We definitely need to get on with our moments of recovery in steps and stages that include procedural acts of normalization in light of the reduced efficacy in our circumstances, once we suffer disfranchisement that complicates some psychosocial incapacitation. Obviously, you are proffering certain methods that you linger on more than others, and want your fellows in the allied mental health services to buck up their own standards of conduct from turning over the significant points of comparison and contrast, aiming at strategies that surpass causal theories of representation. Patients need to take their recovery opportunities as the chance to put their past, and any diagnostic labels they “got told”, into the hour glass dimension necessary for suiting the transitional perspectives that will align them in perfect measure with that completely arbitrary series of documentations. Pure pathognomic doxology deserves less than the time of day, really, of course. I want you to run the pharmaceutical houses, here, too, when you get the equipment and plans approved through Bob W.

  • Richard,

    Left to his own, he’s high. Then he kills it and gets deplored at the serious side of his luck here on earth. Has he got some neat talk of how to hit the pasture for his way around the lane to the old green slag, maybe, watched on the side roads for the hours it takes against his finders fees? What the gene, what the spinnerette, what the value system. What and who-what-when…: he needs his tram one weather vane each person, in times.
    Socialist table lease on loan man, all the diet you need to jam in that say.

  • Robert– Dr. Francis is for doctors and their extra-judicial, mealy-mouthed authority, more than he means to alert the press that the knowledge base for his backwards profession has to keep getting independently sorted out. Such as aside from ECT and psychosurgery staying famously unquestioned by the popular in-crowd for managing media representation of APA positions. Why can’t he grow up about that practical need?

  • Renee, What a loser your bad news counsellor was and is. We see the same thing around here all the time with our church and community mental health program padding each others’ collection plates, if they can help it. I sympathize with your long slog. Obviously, the purpose of doctors here are to recruit folks into working on their whole reputation and caseload, rules and definitions of disorders not excepted. They want you to validate them emotionally, physically, financially, and then burn the bridges with your other supportive folks who aren’t total conformists to their closed chambers sales routines and lock-up ward malfeasance ploys. You finally get away and can be sure to find them right back in your face in their other snookery manifestations…just waiting to wear you down and test you some more.

  • Dr. O., I was trying to warm to “the whole point of surviving”, and hadn’t gotten totally up to the point of where my thinking began and my emotions ended in this wordy rejoinder. I mean what it says, but hadn’t gotten a grip yet for the day…. Oh well. I appreciate that you reply above recommending your interesting sounding book. My point right here is just that my need isn’t tremendous or burdensome to me at the moment, and getting into the history and some points on method in neuroscience was what led me to try concentrating on my reaction to your well worded piece. That had actually been my ulterior motive…, so be sure to have a good day!

  • Hi Dr. Olfman, I was glad you put in the strongest voices right off the bat. Jay Joseph really gets the point of the wilful unreason connected to the built-in gene-to-mental-defect route to the diagnostic guarantee of eternity in forced treatment options for schizophrenic-labelled “others”. Dr. Wilson’s words are revealing as well. The problem with the logic is plain as day from these two pioneers: you can’t mince your words about genetic misfortune, in order to promise ahead of real world evidence, that behavioral dysfunction means that your gene theory rules out the positive opportunities of capable nurturing and socialization efforts for anyone. You can’t, therefore, legitimately and humanely suggest that some genetic marker for “mental illness” renders appeals to the importance of post-natal development meaningless, tout court.

    But then it’s too bad that McGilchrist musses up the popularization of brain research with the ill-predicated materialist despcription of brains that think and know, the mainstay in misguided “naturalism” these days toward the paternalistic, socialistic one-size fits all toning down of the problem with psychiatric oppression outright. Although he might not be out to get us one by one, many neuro- and psychologists standing patiently between us as individuals who need empowered and the golden-egg tenures and extrajudicial authority that we need completely discredited, will use this mistaken logic to excuse “error and excess” as they surely hope to do. This sort of malfeasance is as backwards as McGilchrist’s seemingly enlightened language, which definitely helps it along.

    Then, too, it’s too bad again that we still have to rely on the insouciant adhesion of neo-Freudians like Fromm, outdated as he is as well…another throwback to the Harry Stack Sullivan and then ludicrously inauthentic Robert Cole days of the championing of all means of squelching the debate over the decripitude and malfeasance of the institutional and AMA/APA/APA bureacratized “final solutions”. If the dangerous possibility of censuring the establishment types for blaming the victim and padding their budgets with auto-pay customers all the while came up, that was the fine chance to publish their next neat title. Good critical theorist Herbert Marcuse really helped us look again at the viability of the talking cure in more mature terms, you know? He decried the sentimentality of these very follow the leader types.

    Thanks for all the work you put into your interpretation, however. I very much appreciate that you keep yourself available for survivors, here on MIA. Hopefully, some more of the networking will gain traction here that goes with careproviders who are willing to distinguish matter of factly between two very different sets of needs and purposes: social engineering in response to malingering and moral mischief, and literal suppression of the awareness due the name Patient Advocacy. That would certainly help the inegalitarian mindset to die off, which would be great if it happened to get us all past ruminating unsystematically on past master “reformers”, with their heydays and miraculous espousals, that never were really anything more than shots at halfway truthful, not exactly cutting edge advocacy. Are you planning to speak at any of the year’s upcoming service-provider or gov/NGO conventions?

  • Margaret, Your article is very effective for representing the moments of empathetic connection beyond your description of it. I got inspired by the careful restatement of the facts of this awakening to sense of self in respect of other minds and reasonings than will necessarily in every regard FEEL for this newer, little person’s own one. That demonstrative approach makes it easy to turn to your own life history and reflect on the true regard in which you know of empathy as serving you, and as coming to mean the right way to resilience only as some hard won insights bring its ultimate value into perspective. Many things here connected to the original developments of Bob Whitaker’s critique of psychiatry here, too, it seemed, and extended the relevance of the opportunity to learn from the comments to your article. Specifically, the general mood of criticizing patients and teachers and families for “denying facts of disorder” on the one hand, and then coaxing them into denial about the loss of control over normal life choices with coercive arrangements for administering drugs and extending treatment plans to infinity. Refusing to acknowledge the totally experimental nature of these monolithic treatment protocols just is not professional “helping”.

  • Truth in Psychiatry–Hi, thanks for the acknowlegments in reply to my thoughts. In case you wondered about the quotes, I just got curious about abbreviation “rules” and counldn’t think better than that right then.

    To answer your question, no I don’t face that contingency as parent or legal guardian. As uncle married into a family, I had to quell my favorite sister-in-law about her rowdy, unruly toddler (my nephew Aaron) who was a tremendously proficient biter. He got served according to the daycare’s helmet law, and Leilee was surprised that he let it take no fun out of his social opportunities there. But that’s not as difficult as dealing with toddlers whose coping strategy is severely deficient, and whose real problems are not merely developmental and adaptive ones. I am very sorry for your plight, and always believe that your voice counts here in your favor as a Mom just how it truly must count to you.

  • Hi Malia, You do a truly nice job picking through the details you chose to focus on, as in keeping your reactions to the multitude of implications brief and on track–with your involvement with the issue at a personal level allowed to show up very obviously. I will save this page to read it over again. Thanks for the concision and neat succession of facts, all very logical and informatively presented. I respect your coherent approach to recommending one clear line of conclusions that strike the pragmatic note, overall. I wouldn’t want to nitpick over any of it. Definitely, you avoid prophesying about how to settle all bets and you have good ideas about how to avoid business as usual very clearly understood, here. Also, we all certainly have to recognize that things are too bad as they stand–both in life and with the behavioral healthcare system–than to prove some point by engaging in “exceptionalism rhetoric” about each and every hiring and firing and certification issue… which are not all equally skin deep.

    My alternative in support of your conception for good navigation of all these dilemmae would just be to keep as many sorts of facilities as can handle the work totally peer run/lived experienced staffed, with working professionals scheduled in by these authentic peers to the milieus for any regular 100% voluntary care needs. Potentially, soome invited on-site staff could serve, in the vein of the average dormitory front desk personnel, merely standing by until called in when upset or nervous or paranoical folks or peers with lived experience like. Or else they respond in limited verbal fashion according to specific demands for “expert opinions” off of them for some set period of time, and so on. But they should have to enter through the rear of the building when reporting to work and keep their offices there, without control over the workings of the facility and staff. This keeps them out of presuming to impose automatically on other visitors, compeers, clients, janitors, or psychiatric technicians who invite messages from the milieu that clients want directed To Those Professionals who cannot secure their egress themselves. Lived experience folks should handle all word coming the other way form them and likewise serve as escorts and observers of these helping professionals, since medical needs should be sorted out completely and not bear on the facts of behavioral theory for mental problems, under observation, in situ. Otherwise, these usual well-meaning academic types will just be around trying to do psychology to justify their own existence and supporting no one but the testing agencies and the lousy likes of the AMA/APA1/APA2, the war on drugs idiots, and the phony judgeships and socialist bureacracies, and all the bad researches and foolish wealth tranfer schemes of the racist establishment that goes with it. Just look at it now in the guise of the nanny state. Maybe some of them can change their personalities and do better for us, but not most. For instance, they haven’t even done the hard work needed of them on appreciating the meaning of comprehending and relating to altered states of perception.

    In addition, evidence is lacking that they actually esteem the perfection of existential feelings of comity and reciprocity available to everyone alike in hard won moments of rational enlightenment. These can come spontaneously with capable guidance during creative and authoritative interventions, and represent signal achievements for recovery of emotional stability and normal perceptual reasoning. They don’t take the right view of others’ achievements in attaining clear insights once they “get identified as mentally ill”. They ignore issues in respect to reaching higher consciousness free of illusory thinking, or the sense of oneness that results in the total dissipation of narcissistic and histrionic processes hidden deep within most people’s familiar ruminations. So far, as a class of human relations investigators, they are unreliable in ridiculous measure when it comes to popularizing important linguistic distinctions: what especially comes to mind is the dleiberately suppressed fact of the necessity for having every paternalistic practitioner’s policies of non-patient advocacy kept totally explicit.

    Such “caregivers” should not get legal authority or permission to contribute to case histories or trade publications regarding their work in connection with mental health goals, except as our own anti-psychiatry representatives release them from force majeur clauses, formally. Since these middle class types, logically speaking, are just the same kind of front for internal fraud as purveyors of selective enforcement of laws and entrapment of otherwise innocent of legitimate accusations for alleged wrongdoings, that is the minimum appropriate to the honest category for their IDs to represent. Anyway, how I come across the ideological divide to meet your proposal in likemindedness is simple to work out for me, in that your appeal is to conscientiousness at the same time as it is made in the name of good conscience! Fantastic work–and an approach I wouldn’t have had confidence to try. Please give us more of your recommendations again, soon.

  • “Truth”–Since diagnosis isn’t the same as the cure of disease or distress, then establishing better models for parenting has to come very high on the list of research interests and various trials of clinical method, right? So there has to be some good and bad parenting styles or approaches determined, with good and bad potentials recognized across the populations, case by case. Getting better with your kid has some plain everyday meaning, and doctors aren’t the heroes or the heavies unless they refuse to stand in and take over carte blanche for the parental authority. And they are no doctor at all if they see parents looking for the ultimate out in biology, and then fail to suggest better guardianship than by those who want all the answers coming from biological research for their autistic offspring.

  • Deron, Per Yeah_I_survived’s sayings…. The timeliness is right on about the uptick in philosophical commitments for psychological testing and legal determinations of incompetency. The Aristotelian view of character development is seeing its final formulation come to fruition as it matters for critical overviews of the human sciences including its nomenclature and research methods. Some European intellectuals with evident backing from select American pragmatists are setting the bar for a recovery of Sartre’s views on character traits and egoic presentations of affect and intentional modes of conduct. To me, this far-reching and largely invisible (i. e., “kept invisible”) trend belies the humdrum overemphasis of the multiple “cultures” of various research and institutional milieu’s and morass’s of anti-responsibility, here at home.

  • Hi BPD, You get my vote on subtlety in appropriate context on the final “genes gone off wronging us” analysis. I don’t want to push the envelope beyond that point myself: as your remark suggests, what the DNA is, is something complete and exists as given in and for the individual, but this person is not its genetic impress. And they have to tell us more than the biologist and lab tech., who are simply materialists in the life sciences vein, such specialists as will want to say we must require nothing exceptional of each other in listening skills or be labelled abnormal at birth. In order to account for their personal viewpoints and the states of their rational minds, however, people have to get tolerated and encouraged and enticed by the chance to restate their purposes and explore their limitations to surpass their physical potentials. It’s obvious that the biological view isn’t cuttie-cutter simply a matter of top-down reductions.
    The nature and condition of anyone’s real understanding can’t stop at the door that the specialist says requires them to file through for their managed care. The human sciences and neurosciences compete for obsolescence in pharmaceutical research as it is, and as AA tends to reveal, they incline toward decadence and nanny state defeatism their many indiscrete, blithesome followers. You really field the questions and the ambiguities of the human condition with authority, these days…so have you heard of Dennis Noble’s work at countering “The Selfish Gene” with his “The Music of Life”? The tide is turning, there, in some note for revival of Sheridan’s work, and academics are tackling his dualism to examine what limits his discernments–specifically, in regard to what is and is not “presenting” of objective or subjective behaviors. The web presence is convenient since the Buddhist and Science series of Oxford kicked off the lectures promoting the book.

  • Hi Deron,

    Learning to meet psychological needs and not discount their basis in life’s necessities, through which we share and achieve our understandings, is great subject material for us. I really think so, and appreciate your line of commentary; and enjoyed what else you told of your personal experiences this time. Thank you–

  • Hi Michael, Thanks for the work-up and reactions of yours, and then getting the others drawn to the page. I feel that the technology is exciting, and that it will at first and perhaps for good die away misused and this as used to oppress is just awful. Of course, as a druggy the thought that I could get the chip in something free and easy to stay off of anyway, good quality “street drugs”–let’s say, so to agree, that I mean pharmaceuticals that work great but need situational monitoring and not regulatory authority outside of the clearinghouse in which they are produced. Like LSD, Dexedrine, heroin and refined opiates, codeine, secanol, atavan and pleasant chill pills…all unnecessarily labelled as doctors need the labels to control debate and market conditions in deference to judgeships for regarding their authority, maniacally.

    Such latent dexterity is completely redundant. Who needs help visiting pharmacies and drop-in centers is no one. Nothing but bartending happens with drugs inside the current hospital system for us now, anyway. Yet what lousy service and flimsy rules they contrive for us. This can’t be argued and defended as anything but second rate to blackmarket efforts. Worse than abstinence itself. Worse than the minority rule it proscribes and intends: what the whole standard system aims at, from “stigma” to “compliance” to Segregated Assisted Living “Facilities”. All so behind the times only the most mildewed and risible Welshers would “keep foughting” to have it stay the mode of presentation that all may keep as best noticed.

    So, this wouldn’t be more than my typical commuter game face attitude, usually just wordlessly supported. Since it is so obviously the right direct criticism to the lowlife control freaks and crybabies who run behavioral health services in my country…the stupid weirdos. Anyway, the freedom that some people could but obviously won’t get to enjoy from this system is one I would only jump to mention here in some format at MIA. Hopefully, the fact isn’t out of kilter for your thread as developing so far.

    Some very recalcitrant adherents to the medical model for mood disorders could get persuaded to monitor their drug use with the problematic dosage tended to, voluntarily, then data and performances come to represent another path for convincing them to make life style changes. More systematically especially in the case of people with multiple diagnoses, who like to stick to the myth of mental illness that keeps them from knowing reponsible differences of opinion with themselves in “different” moods. Not to leave the guesswork out, think of the problem as headless and seamless and proud and fully inured with extrajudicial authority and the love of in-house “peers”, as we do have in the entirely business as usual way that supplies the hagiography in the old way of looking at the mega-pharmaceutical and anti-voluntarism “reformers”.

    Unfortunately, society is just that sick that such good opportunity is foreordained by the disgusting Left of the tag along Thomas Insellites and humbug British socialist “critical psychiatrists” attempting to mean something viable for the life of themselves, and, in like fashion “maybe with luck”. But the meaning intended is obviously outright negative domination of opinion and autonomy of patients and good support networks, and so on. Elsewhere than here and there, the very suggestion has to come in under the radar much too forcefully and demonstratively. There no one goes to weed out the bald-faced lies of the dog and pony show that goes on at the workaday level for consumers and survivors and compeers.

    Anyway, the chance to stick the product in the establishments ugly fat face or stick it and win for the battered little guy who can’t figure how to help himself out is totally marginal because of the group hug effect of bogus onus-mongering, as everyone reminds me, so far. These sorts of thumbsuckers and career moonlighters say we can’t risk freedom and good faith, then risk to the detriment of the saving graces of natural humankindness, and defeat real channels of positive empirical intervention. Such mere experiments that could go on to thrive in bartar and exchange programs that focus super-communities inside communities, instead of supra-communities that “work halfway” as homes and detention centers. What fools we have to live with here, what live idiots of the children of Martians and Venutians all prissing our true futures away–for good, for free.

    The device you rightly lambast here, Dr. Cornwall, certainly represents the many arrays of dangers your article and the post-ers in the thread suggest. If we were to tally it up, I like to think the content then would become one of the most interesting to surpass through some kind of transformative rejoinder to it. Not like some grand antithesis and thetic resolve like John Searle. Not some crackpot idiocy of George Graham’s “disordered mind” theory, another puffball of fairy-cake that signifies nothing and means it less, for however it pleases him to elaborate. Not Bill Fulford’s silent snowflakism on the hot button of the David Healy paddle of gynerosity.

    My apology in repletion, since that flippancy was unavoidable given the constantly emended agency of the neoliberal bureaucracy and the stoney anti-responsibility quacks of the meantide. Still, maybe I want these damn implants on me and not just some of them: no joking about that. The myriad uses that we can dream up for these things is truly numerable, Man. Except only my right to store them should merit the Swedish authority and dangerous permits that get dreamt up to enslave and torture and murder our rights and health plans. Democracy off the rails is no myth, and unless we reformulate the medical model and quit lending reading time to the mortal weaknesses who claim to need their nursing jobs more than equal rights for patients, and patient-advocacy spelled out in careful detail. Inviting rundowns like yours here is more apt than having the thin-veined and histrionic slow fizz of physician preferential research models. Like the alluded to misuse of the harping on RTGs to attract followings that accumulate more end o’ the era data fields to max out their party crashing marathon hit parades. Clever non-historians finally get to eat it, as we expect they should when we discover their law of opposition as the removal of literal approaches to the facts of harm intended and benign treatment options gotten suppressed. Not excluding approaches to simple withdrawal protocols that reveal the contingencies of risk and harm in proportion. And that’s what I imply by the joke above. Just see who has more trouble going off the implant. Plainly the true believers in the need for AMA life insurance and the myth of the brain drain happening when folks migrate who can’t learn to play nice and stick around for their meet-ups. Let’s see the bums pay up or shut up and lose their rep and cred.

  • Hi Cindi, Since I just started sleeping again several nights ago, after having stayed awake and alert on account of psychiatric and psychological services back East here showing such lackadaisical attitudes toward men returning from battle during my lifetime, please allow me some time to get deeper into your track of information here… and get back for further replies. The footing of your narrative discourse on evidence seems nice and everyday to me. We hardly need to repeat the insufferable and dilemmae laden tales of stupidity regarding institutional oversight from the past and recent past as far as it implicates the fear of “no new journalism” “because of the journalist’s bad day in transition to online data feeds”. As though the Left arises from the nothing itself is…. Your more worldly and broadly seen scope of humanity in detail is refreshing, and as a survivor I am really, really with you on this page, today!

  • Hi Jay, Listen, thanks ongoing. Your taste in fight reminds me of Spinoza, by the way, although at my little slight language science level. I took some time placing your nice textbook that looks worth the time to sit around (here And there…hooray, man), that is situating it in the Universe of Discourse–intellectually well. The effort was simple and basic and took the appropriate level of attention to the facts of the details and was of the difficulty that suits the plain reality that most “aeffects” us here in America. And will for ever, or at least For Good for “so long”. As I say unerring in no moanism. Sorry. Just saw who had posted and have to Ave’-Say Save the first read through for later. I have about finished my looks at fundaments and sci and fi arrangements of rhetoric and obsolete SEP talk, etc. That is done. No more viability for them inside, at all. Pleased to let you know that, while still “almost” no thanks due to the fun fanny shape up (so meaty and guerry and stitchy) on the Left Way Out on the Web.

    I like the difference (“the” Relevance) you keep tagged for keeping the talc ahead of the rosin here, for sure. Very much until later, thank you.

  • SDelgado – Since you are into taking in the whole range of the available perspective, which is in social science–most generally, the point that counts once you find or make time for the updates, here’s what seems true on one front, at least. The theory encompasses unexplained variables for some of the range of identified cause and effect relationships still for trauma relegated to the story for PTSD. The terms of theory, no matter how helpful they might be to someone trying to identify what is happening to themselves when visited with pathological reactions, never surface in the CBT literature in comprehensive form–that is, as far as I have seen. But as the targeted consumer of the information, who never got a day of help with trauma from any therapist, not to forget no referrals and using a made to order program supposedly just for it, I would expect CBT outfits who publish scores of books to heighten awareness of their good work…to put the comprehensive word out. “Fragmented memories”? “disorder of agency”? These are pretty big deals for getting your label right. But the help in framing any sort of trauma recovery seems top of the page important for what you need to reconsider as you gauge your own success on identifying cognitive errors and qualifying your remarks in revising to more instructive, accurate descriptions of what your incapacitation means relevant to your situation. I believe it is Judith Herman, who if memory serves is whose summary of the implications of the research so far in on traumas I most recently read through who said that “we don’t think any can fully recover from traumatization in their lifetime”, which is paraphrase. But I do not recall the exactly stipulated terms for this portentous remark, right now, and would need to reread this paper I did read and more of her work and analysis to understand it. In the meantime, I think that the best one to gather the data on my experience and adjustment is me. So I love seeing attention to perspective and what is or can be realistic to hope for or believe in as serious help from every direction. But no experience informs of the uptick of more viable options, generally, in the current scene, for where I live. The same doctrines and lack of specificity about who knows what until after long series of payments and misguided interviews pan out and boxes are checked is still what holds. No MIA impact to take notice shows on the surface of any promotional or insider support networks, and no one knows very much who I talk to in the allied mental health fields about either the limits or the total benefits of ranges of theories. The same slow march of shifts in patterns of doctrinaire shuffling of your case file and referrals once your seen to need “different” listening attention goes on as ever. The bottomline is, except that you go to the doctor, go to the nurse, go to the therapist with what they both do swear, and you thought it up yourself, you still will “have” what all the old papers said. That’s how it’s going. My money’s on me, reading up, and broadening my interests against the current of stifled opinions, which I’m not saying yours is. thank you

  • Hi Richard – I appreciate you heart. But you are in error to say that the cogito leads to no real world of things. That’s false. Funny, too–where did you come up with that “inference”? The cogito, correctly understood works out as the only absolute truth. But still, it is a degraded proposition. You can’t get the “I am” and the “I think” to guarantee that the “I” in both refers in each case to the same realities. But furthermore, against your position on it, the ultimate implication is that other than this absolute truth and the apodictic truths of math and logic, we live in a world of probabilities and so have to choose our enjoyments and the objects of our passion with care. Because everything is dangerous, period.

  • Hi Barrab, You get your point across to me about the arrogance well. Since you say showing and in the context of so many careful attention to the reflections that all mattered for your comment, it is clear to me what your intention is. I have already in a few moments started thinking what good advice that is and why, to look at whether my thoughts and actions are revealing a bad kind of arrogance or a bad side of myself that could change with some deliberate attention to getting something straight about who I was or was not. Especially who I was to tell someone else who they could or should be. Good job, here, for you, I think.

  • Hi Johanna – That’s nice that you have a solid opinion on the matter of tapering. I didn’t say anything bad about the highly popular and more and more frequently approved program of tapering. The idea of taking med vacations came to me from a doctor who helped me when my position was silimar to Dian’s. That is, Johanna, I didn’t know WHAT to do. Tapering also is not guaranteed. But I wouldn’t automatically have thought of anything to get started on one for any drug ever, except that this considerate doctor who was a careful listener and flexible in weighing possible solutions gave me the tip of trying “med vacations”. He plainly indicated that he had gotten enough feedback about ways that other patients coped to say “vacation” instead of “non-compliance” if he learned about some lack of consistency that seemed OK to him. Thus, he had bothered to think up this name that seemed to frighten and displease you beyond all the ways of connecting it that I shared so far.. You don’t think saying “I took a med vacation today” indicates way out dangerous thinking, do you? That’s all I suggest to dian, that a med vacation of a day can work out, but then I mean exactly what I say, Johanna. So thank you for adding your worries about the specific meaning of the words “one” or “two”, if those were the ambiguities that scared you. I meant one or two days per each week, like I said to Dian, exactly. And suggested something good could happen if she were to do that purposefully in order to get some varieties of experience and to keep track of her different thoughts and feelings for talking about. But as dian is obviously the adult in question and not a misfit or infant unable to think rationally for herself, I don’t think we should assume she just went off her Prozac all at once and started freaking out. Wake up to the idea of getting receptive to your own needs in a variety of ways, Johanna. I had to ask me some questions, you have to ask you some questions. Dian has to ask her own questions, too. And that it is up to dian if she decides to start a taper or anything else or not, totally, as things stand. And that she should try to get to her thoughts shared with someone that appreciates that Dian is Dian, so that the sharing gravitates toward some kind of process for an unfolding of the complications she experiences from her pain and how her pain comprises her freedom to enjoy life. Remember pain, Johanna? Is the whole idea of confronting someone else’s pain about saying things about tapering for you or what? Whoa! yourself, Johanna. She might do it, it might work, nothing might. But something should. No one knows what. Read John Dawes!

  • Hi Andrew – In CBT workbooks so far I have believed that authors continually made deliberate efforts to impress the need for me the reader to assess the realistic connection of any thoughts to the people and things they were about in actuality. I appreciate the detail and practicality of your question as you spelled the logic out for doing that out according to the implications just of good and bad thoughts themselves in relation to how you tackle just thought-relationships. Thank you.

  • Hi Dian–

    I wouldn’t miss the opportunity to hear you out if you came to me for that. You need to think of things that haven’t occurred to you, if you haven’t gotten on the bearable side of some issue. Or you need and want to understand some things it make you think of in a different light, want more of one feeling then another so that you get perspective on what to do. You need uplifting feelings to know what might give you more realistic chances to work through grief in the first place. I feel sorry for your loss. Maybe Prozac by itself also keeps you from flowing with ideas that are most realistic. Maybe take one or two day vacations from it each week and journal about it, see how the Prozac off days compare to the Prozac on days. Try the competing modes of experiencing your sadness and look at all the similarities and differences in thought as well as feeling. Act like your situation–the real one–house, car, hobbies, errands, friends, scrapbooks, pleasures, pains–is just undicovered for how you need it to be. That it’s impossible to work with might seem true or be true enough, but the answer is what to change about both you and it, and the range of answers includes just scrapping your situation and gettingyourself onto more and better. So I am suggesting that if you vary your drug intake safely and predictable and keep track of that outcome, and if you on purpose get the freshest looks you can and work on naming the similarities and differences to how you were that was better at the time, or how you want to be–then you just will have better chance to talk anything over. The better prepared you are to say anything more particular and seen from a range of different angles on it, especially once you realize that you don’t have the final perspective on all this one thing might connect up with, you can work through bits and pieces of your issues lots better in talking them out. You can definitely do that since you say things clearly. Someone somewhere will want to talk with you, happily. They won’t know your answers but should like what you do for yourself when you look inside to get the meanings of your pain sorted out. You need company somehow, as you obviously realize. What the person or persons who finally seem like the best company to you call themselves in life is hard to say, though. They might not be listed as talking professional help, or they might be. You never know. But you have gifts of expression and some good and some bad luck with connecting with people and with sorting your issues out and getting them into working order, and those just are the things to improve, as the drugs are like hamster wheel solutions to any real life matter. I hope you are turning things around decisively soon, and believe you can.

  • Jill,

    Although remotely connected to your promotional responsibilities and your recently published works’s individual value to us, the way that scholarship in philosophy of mind plays out in reply to cognitive neuroscience and the related programmatic issues that interest researcers in both of these diverse fields, certainly suggests to me that your book is important to read. Thank you for the timely and intelligent help you offer survivors and all mentally ill people and those who care about them by showing you care about the science they have to trust.

  • Orbit – hi, again and hope you got clear messages. I think that Dr. Galves knows what he hopes he knows, but not a point of view that’s not his. Like everyone. So I had good positive stuff in reserve besides concern that I couldn’t see how to spell out above. I did just sort of instinctually absorb some essence of the article, like stated to jw_arndt, above.

    I had got curious with your remarks, earlier, and an idea came into my head. One that was hard to get started on since it seemed to require meeting you halfway, and I didn’t know half of the way. The things that were easier to say just were easier for myself to relate and care about thinking over because I do anyway. Sorry about that– if it was, or sounded like a bad reply.

    Here is the positive, which needed some time. Thank you for yours, again. This: your focus, your communication style and your way of thinking, as sparse as your language sometimes is, together these reflect the differences in various approaches to subject matter involving Theory of Practice. To be precise, what is called Theory of Praxis, when done right, answers to what it takes to teach and refine someone’s acqusition of a particular set of skills. Whatever is humanly practiced falls within its domain. In given sets of circumstances and in all areas of life, when people set out to learn what to do, Praxis seeks to know how they did it.

    I thought maybe you knew and maybe not about that, and that you should check it out in searches at this point, either way. Just add it in as a keyword. Science to communications majors can use praxis theory for research. I downloaded some things myself because they aligned with my prior reading interests. You might find something at the comfortable midway point that allows transitions from easy to hard, which is the potential I see for how issues in praxis might help me. I hope that made more sense!

    To reiterate, Orbit: your focus, way of thinking, and communication style remind me of someone who has worked through some of what studying praxis theory teaches. Maybe you could say it teaches how to learn from necessary learning experiences better, including with books and articles and feedback. How you personally mean to get busy and to get something done is about your learning style and communication interests, and not just what someone can tell you, definitely. But there it is–this image of praxis theory occurring to me in looking at your latest comment, got me pretty wound up about things I believed I needed to get busy on.

    You seem like you could get a soft focus working for yourself right now really well. Maybe looking around at the literature for this field will give you ideas about looking arounds for more. Since ways that practice makes good on its aims is what it’s about.

  • B – yeah, super funny, here, and let’s you go with the middle way, laughing loud, too. So, listen, B–relatedly on getting the big pictures to what good thinking ought to seem to all who know, have you heard of the book called “Logic Comix”? I picked this neat book up and have only checked it out to consider its value and see how it might settle on logical asides in the drawings and their juxtapositions…”beyond” the remarks. Taken seriously as your introductory text it provides a sweeping survey of intellection on logical theory, and coughs up the general facts of the history of its multidisciplinary implications in relation to the History of Ideas. I am sure you could find howlers from one chapter to the next, since they work through Russell and Whitehead, and Russell thought bad work was what “genius” makes most well into its owner’s bad jokes about his own soon to be “prior self”–in faculty and publication terms, anyway.

  • Orbit – I Get your intents. But about your hesistation to lay out your terms more definitively for Dr. Galves…. He probably can’t read you like a skeptic and get down to business in a like manner as you try doing in your posts if he doesn’t know something about where you are coming from and your level of expertise. Right, the evidence base goes through the crosshairs when science turns from forensic to chemical analyses, from pieces case histories together to diseecting molecules and watching them affect how DNA dances, and so forth. But the game of protesting too much about how you classify controlled substances has to get approached gamily, not rigidly like the one way is totally the only way to do it. That problem starts for most of us and for how our lives go in DEA classifications, that is the Law here, etc. To neglect the context won’t get you seeing how you want about that fine split between science trial and error and scientific theoretical reductions of theories and terms from one model to the next. It’s tough stuff, so you’d better get your background representing you here, if you want the value of expressing yourself to count in the mix and reward you in the first place for say your peace and all. Do you read philosophy of science? Antipsychiatry needs big help with that.

  • But we need the anti-Bio message in any case, and coming across wisely encouraging in how its stated–like this is By Al. The importance of intending to ask yourself how you really stand to answer for things alone counts for much more than no “greater” option. Evidently you are sometimes pretty good at that, if you are prone to such meaningful jokes. This happens anytime you want it to, this taking responsibility, so you will have to work harder at the Blasphemy next time for me to lose the personal benefit of having my own point of view next time over. Sorry about thee gobbledygook language like shows in my first reply above. Gosh, this keeps hurting to say I’m sorry about obscurity, but I am. (Personal note: The funny way to let myself off for that has more and more been that not anyone ever in hundreds of professional contacts, employed any smart language with me during their encounters for which they were having their questions aimed at me, not any language that had anything like possibility of success at work for coming up with the right supportable diagnosis for this system’s people to work on and think about. Generally, few MIA authors’ behavioral healthcare colleagues I’ve known have patiently and deliberately tried to see about what I like, who I am, or what I know. Anyone who used technical language and tried to insist it fit my case really missed the point. Only the people who let the questions stand and were willing to believe that my own interest was high in getting somewhere about my problems for myself did anything for me at all. But no one ever said “disorder of agency” or “fragmented memories” or “flashback sequences” or “depersonalization” were any kind of thing for me to check against my “lived experience” or how I felt or thought, not ever once. Not even in abiofeedback program promoted for PTSD with doctors and therapists both, recommended to me by own now departed sister who killed herself for not getting her Paxil to fix everything for everybody who wanted it to–or something close to that in motive regarding the drug option. Plus, there is no such thing as MIA impact where I reside, and the opposite is still true here very frequently, as contrasted with some comprehensive of general interests to keep explicit when helping people with relating to the value of personal growth.) So your comment let me channel much more than I could think to say something about is easiest way to put it, at this point.

    How you can do that aforementioned self-inquiry right and much better from time time with advisement, I promise you can tell if you ever have your chance to get very deep into therapy, though. Then the everyday changes lots, but the label–whichever one–stays as stigmatizing as ever unless you help people change their minds about how smart they are to like you with trauma issues that you are starting to recover from, instead of how in awe of psychiatry they were while believing that you were less than needed because you would never get good at much and do it reliably well. As everybody knows, the minority of absolute compliance example cases show perfectly great, happy and spontatneous lovers of life coming out of the usual treatment programs. Anyway, finding good therapy isn’t easy, and half of the content of this article suggests that we need to expect to run into shopping problems right up front, which is an OK thing to leave implicit in my view. Sometimes it is best to leave shopping advice aside or implicit for anything important to do, when your particular need is for procuring services rather than goods, ifyou see the point in that. That’s one thing, and another is that crisis intervention really is out there doing little good most of the time than what anyone tired of this system’s service commitments knows. But if some rich mix of talented peer and non-peer mixed crews got together and ramped that up like some have been know to be trying, that is one way of keeping numerous individuals getting the emergency vehicles all fired up in their honor and feeding themselves back to the hospital wards for renewed detentions and no new techniques. That is a way I myself found honest support but once, but I won’t forget it or how it could have helped my sister to have practiced calling and saying two things about her feeling really just shy of giving up on herself. That you get taken away immediately upon saying you think about if that is what you should do makes no very good sense. I have had half a dozen people at least say as much to me, and we arrived at no further understanding than that I wasn’t there to help change their minds about anything very personal and unique about them, or get to the bottom of what about their minds were so messed up. At first blush upon reading your comment, I was thinking “…Nonetheless, the general points this blogpost makes all count for something having to do how you know live options when you see them”, etc., or something. You know it has to do with your take on your basic needs and interests as well as your thoughts about how you want your purposes overall to start working out, right now. I mean that to me, you want “stop and think about time daily lots and lots”, becasue this puts you into the right positive attitude–if you know what you are doing–to see much about your relationship to your feelings that you couldn’t just by wishing you had mapped them all out. And the variety of replies in the thread has good range and no matter how seemingly disputatious you find yourself in reaction to such efforts as Dr. Galves for something that leaves you hanging out with the aburdity of the material implications in respect to your life, here, you are bound to get inspired to try to achieve thoughtfulness and levelheadedness about the options you create. Of course, how your comment first affected me led to that realization of the good seriousness in your joke, and I’m still laughing just the same. Thank you for making your reply so interesting, J., and I am sorry my first handling of these same concerns with the same conceptual framework for spelling out my beliefs about options as before turned out so garbled in reply. In fact, in comparison, your comment was like someone as passenger saying to a busyminded and meandering talker behind the wheel–“Look at that lovely tornado!” But I learned how to get very deeply into therapy basically despite what was ever on offer, and from just glimpses of something that could have headed somewhere nice enough for someone who was not me, if the person got to see her lighten up like she had lightened up with me long enough to reveal about how things would go. But I had too much to get straight without more theories, that’s for sure, and some direct questions asked of me fairly early on if not immediately–about like “What do you think they were trying to do to you?” with raised eyebrows, and a sort of baffled curiosity amidst the expressions behind it, would have given me just the assurance I needed for seeing how my window-shopping had actually worked out, if you now what I mean. So, nothing much worth telling about went down for me, but I got it made easy to see therapeutic options like you couldn’t get enough of them if I look where my instincts tell me to go with my attention to the matter, now. So this people-pleaser of an article from Dr. Galves fits for me like a blurry gust of a familiar whirlwind of updates on social actions needed, the same as for the telling range of self-help reminders given away. Oh, well–so many thoughts to wait on from how you let yourself get affected. So many thoughts, and then the best part of the trip–that I like. Thank you, J., for your pleasant contribution, too.

  • Psyches are just thought up as constructions, so it doesn’t matter to get too specific if the strike intended gets aimed at anti-Bio–I can tell you that. But my intention is not to start in on the whole meaning of human science, and if all “blame”–whatever this man is naming by the term–is in every case perverse, then he got preoccupied A Lot Once. I hope that helps with your dilemma or any further chances to think about restating some of the meaningful content for how it shows loyalty to way out quiet time for kid’s punishments and big bad terrible things for those who murder–like “help”.

  • Hi Laura,

    Actually, considering that you’ve adopted a general attack on the issue of informed consent and started with the idiotic and weird practice of ECT as your route to get a handle on it, I like how it sits better among the most important issues for survivors. Well, just that infrence leaves me with a job, in the loser’s game set up on MIA for mincing your fine words to the users in favor of the defeatists: to wit, my new “job” is to decide how ECT and any other survivor issues now rank in importance as societal ones for us and anyone abroad, and then how they stack up as human rights issues among all potential human rights issues on a global scale. Anyway, backing up from that digression, your focus on the lack of informed consent brought me back here to write, with what I thought through yesterday with some help from other commenters and some news also counting. Beyond that and forever, I suppose it is true that thoughts of others worth something for their time, if nothing else, and usually the potential to feed them and take some enjoyment from keeping that pleasant–thoughts of the worth of the less than inspirational people around with you in a human rights fight, those thoughts count for something human and true, too, and therefore also must help. But having had the pleasure to meet you and here your voice in person, and see your contentment growing as you understood in your time at it a little more that the reality of informed conesent for ECT–if it ever exists–goes down hill fast after your prepped and not needed. And so it goes with the loss of rights game. My reckoning is that our civil rights getting abrogated is our number one cause. Human rights as a whole, something to learn all about, but our own what to focus on. Lack of apt informed consent, it’s virtual impossibility in many instances, our third priority for an antipsychiatry survivor movement with an abolishment platform for how we are made use of for psychiatrists and their business affiliates—all of them–and the critics and surviviors to get to write and sell their books. You have to take the good with the bad, when the work for which you need no special training is thought pretty tricky to get right. What a laugh. What a joke. What a screw-up. What a loss. Up theirs.

  • bpd – Sorry and sorry ahead of time. Your responses were perfect for the occasion, it seems to me, and I don’t need anything ever in reply unless some inspiration commands it. But I still would appreciate your reading any comment of mine if it naturally comes to your attention that you want to. We all are pretty happy with that, who are mainly ignored pretty much of the time. When my ability to stay articulate about this whole range of issues becomes the thing that matters, and usually I’m never–you know–put to the test for anything much, then that will be what I work on right away. Thank you for your accurate help in taking charge of yourself as a fellow thinker and talker somewhere out there and prompting my comprehension into gear about putting some attention on the fact that of making this happen. Your very direct and courteous, considerate manner of sharing your knowledge is what made me want to work at this, and those things are allowed to take shape here. Well, I got clear and learned to understand some of the commentary that I encounter here better from now on–until I maybe don’t again with various types of opinionated expression. I had to write the essay version for what I believe to be the true purposes of biopsychiatry and, additionally, the real incidental meanings of its use of the medical model for deflecting criticism of its improper legal authority. That improper authority to detain and coerce is solidly and unopposedly maintained as an historical aberration of gross proportions where most of us live, and is disgusting to me for what it means to have it existing in the United States. That is the main issue at the heart of the survivor movement’s needs for something to call out as insufficiently noted, in my view. And that demurring about and backstaging of the human rights issue is the business as usual clause to be seen with all the concerted mewling around about reforms needed that the system can “survive” not getting our time and attention enough unless they count a dozen more new ways than for our habeas corpus and due process related rights before the Law itself represents a lose or win all racket for the moneyed and most bureaucratically influential powers that be, in my eyes. We should maintain a strong focus on the abolishment of forcible detention and every obvious or subtle type of practical coercion at all times, too, and act like we get the point of why unless we are out of the world asleep. The freedom and opportunity issue is what topically should never get deflected one bit, as everyone knows who wants to live here. Psychologists can make it very easy to understand that behavioral healthcare experts will lie if they see the chance to influence the legal process along the lines of who gets to keep their rights equal and who won’t. They should work to establish little else in the public’s imagination, but hardly ever show work on this psychologically relevant problem. In your case here, however, I mainly had not got my thought clear about something else, totally–more of a David Healy and Al Francis office procedure issue than one for getting patient advocacy working fairly and safely in this country, like we were both considering here, it’s safe to say. To wit: Mortimer and Brown haven’t got the right to disagree with care options that work better or else differently and yet still just as well, much less to squelch the fact of the matter with writing the traces of these competing views out of existence in any of their work-related thoughts that get published as they thought them in mere biopsychiatric terms. Any time psychiatrists working with this foolishly granted extra-judicial authority in their favor put up the bio-option, they owe us the clearer picture that science can already have seen by then to give everyone about behavioral healthcare solutions–side by side. The role of entitlements in this system based on this giant silent majority of careproviders with their “response” on legal rights abuses is at a ground swell and support for freedom of expression seen on the Left at an all time low. From the viewpoint of any of this allied mental health industry’s representatives or any of their commerce-friendly advocates for reform measures that this current group of caregivers can “survive” is the biggest joke going around for those of us who mean to criticize treatment insufficiencies and rights abuses carefully, fully, and well. The deficiency in level of intellectual commitment reigning throughout the allied mental health professions, taking them as if represented in a state of full employment according to available positions, as well as that for the higher educational departments in synchrony with their aims, comes that meaningful one fraction of a second behind legal rights in importance for survivors as an essential issue. However, we are led to the same point of conclusion through this bifurcation. The rights issues lean on the myth of mental illness. The myth of mental illness would itself become pleasant as a good, kind, helpful source of humor, if the allied mental health industry representatives in charge of training, magazines and whatnot in their own and their colleagues favor would choose not to keep mandated treatment the live legal option for biopsychiatry that it is. All sorts of unhelpful and routine medico-therapeutic state advocate ideas would look dangerous to carry on about that get constantly bandied about her in shifting forms. To keep their Obamacare entitlements appropriately easy to depend on, helping professionals in the psychologically needy or the psychiatrically diseased arena would suddenly really have to earn their keep. They owe us, and not the other way around, who want us to handle them feathering their nests while patients die from the killer silence about mental illness as a myth and the fact holding that our degraded citizenship status is its meaning. Some caregivers who blog here do OK with that term of engagement with survivors and remain solidly determined advocates for them above all else. I wish the others had to take it sink or swim, instead of getting propped up the petty reform movement lies. Is there a chink in the wall for the fateful deluge to end the unity between power and psychiatry, really? With all this closely held opinion-and navel-gazing going on about the civil rights “question”, I doubt it. But we still should try to count at everything that matters: that’s all right.

  • I knew you weren’t talking to me. That talking the issue down to black and white of yours for a look at it was what struck me as needed. Your comments all hang together well and tend to get the simplest things connected to the significant elements for the overall case for abolishing coercion to be made every time. In addition, my level of incapacitation is now much more restricted to the terms of mechanically significant (motor reflex) matters of consequence for any mental state compromised by disorder of agency, as mine were almost my whole life some way. When I mess up any grammar or start going off on tangents with emotional overtones that seem incongruent, I can definitely stand to blame better than ever as far as formulating clear to see intentions for staying responsible about thoughts and actions. You take care, anothervoice.

  • Sorry about random typos–it’s bad to miss those– No less bad is leaving out the important adjective to qualify the criticism of the majority of prescribing physicians met with in my experience (but just there for a listen are about the same, too). Probably you will–You likely will–I usually, most usually have seen communication shutdown if the doctor wasn’t the first person to think of what to use. We see that the right idea for safety is unlikely to get around in the needed revolutionary way, and the word for making that possible never has been possible. Doctors want hegemonic influence ahead of patient advocacy and rights to choose your drugs with good advice freely offered in your favor, no matter what your goal in dosing.

  • This establishment and its doctrinaire commitments to paternalism in every routine professional-client interaction has outlived it’s entertainment value. The results are in on that–so, what’s new? The effects of your insomnia on the Dragon of Psychiatry’s little insiders who are all there to help make things about your life seem less difficult is bad for you. So kill the uneasy mechanism’s effects on your brain chemistry as a whole when and how you want. If you know something about what is keeping you sorrowful, frustrated, and frazzled by overanxiety, and if you know how you might like to sleep it off under the influence of some intoxicant decide on the nicest pill. But by all means, first try your most trusted drug-free alternatives for all your worth before choosing medicine as safely as you believe is needed, and if you feel is might work better with some help, then two heads are better than one. But you determine the need for stopping your bout of insomnia and what it means to you. You choose the effects you like and see about getting the ones you like out of the pill you choose. But that means only if you have the leisure to try that at last decision freely at all! I haven’t met the doctor yet who antes up with due diligence about experimenting with single low doses yet. Most in my experience want something less principled and more business as usual that goes with the program. However, oftentimes that seems basically to happen since it serves to represent what they stand to get out of the clinical arrangement: more control. If you are at all assertive, or skeptical and unamazed about the value of official authority control over your decisions, as you should openly be with any doctor, you get the expected communication shutdown. That they feel insecure about their position of authority is their problem and not ours to struggle with.

  • Computer programming wasn’t very well taught yet when my terms became those of nontraditional survivor retaking English and opting out of clueless pscyh some more times. Tellingly, I see potential error in the implementation for the IT ontology, such that it the procedure doesn’t let the machine decide every detail of input and all input is variably defined for mthe outset no matter what entity it intends to “collect” in to the form of one term. No matter what happens about that and any speculation on it, though, no hurry should seem needed for giving Their troops a big survivor reform movement shout out about it from here. They are, after all, the medico-statists authorities’ own. The model for prescribing isn’t market-driven enough according to drug availability for the consumer, and that matters most for the data and outcomes measured–alike. And for health and safety and information sharing rituals and lookup codes at point of sale.

  • Interesting. Was Chris Exxo part of helping that along with Salon? Slate sounds less decided in its terms, and Newsweek wants things right to bait and switch with depending on who opposes what or favors what reason for the moment in some responsible position. Fox is just weighing in light, and not surprisingly, since the issue is minor to the press as an instrument of the masses on welfare, and society as a whole can see the problems as it likes as far as professionals and acedemics would concern themselves with our (psychiatry survivor patient movement activist mental health leader reform organizer movement radical survivor person) legal rights. If anybody wants to see where liberal policy is destined to remain, go to the website for The Nation, put mental illness in their search engine, if you can spare any–Then sit back to enjoy the flair.

  • bpd – You are real help in the middle of expecting none, for people you work with, I think. Any questionably meritorious conduct at all, and no intent to hit you with some disregard of some kind in particular was my worry above. Since I experience disorder of agency, getting at my intentions before enacting my response is the required nature of the vigilance that let’s me take part and anwer for myself in the equation. My attention to one thing–worse than for most people–drops a blind over my appreciation for something just set into the background for a moment while I see what I believe, for instance. Or feel and mean to relate. The intentionality and the constructs associated with it are of reduced functioning in their value. You are totally right that I have to hang with the “idea” of things happening and wait on the feedback for my impressions to matter right. Cheap popular cultural vehicles, for instance–most all we generally see, that is–often grant me the final elements of the cathartic response some pleasantries or shoot-’em-ups ahead of schedule, no matter how sappy and fast action or how moddish and restrained. I drop the most idiotic tears for nothing because of what has gone “untreated”. Anyway, my message was about appropriating the authors viewpoint and the range of ambitions likely operating for their meanings in the contexts in which they like their work and make it how they live. I hope that starts you on the road to better knowledge, somehow. I believe you know that the authors are not just competing with their wits and their contents as put on offer, who are pro-psychiatry however it can stay arranged and not tell all its problems to the world. They want to push some things to research and some to the press and some to each other and their minions and whoever else is compliant, through however many alliances they can identify in their social arrangements. They want not to make anything much explicit that suggests a different power play option than what the “science responds to” or the “science promises and warns”. But they are all coming from the area of discourse that is actually that of opinion, and almost not one says anything scientifically right about good protocols and P. R. measures that alone could reduce harm. They want nothing right if it means things stay the same in money and job security terms, in entitlement terms so that arrests make them profits and give them credibility, and so that little vague reminders of the behavioral healthcare double-dutch with facile and cowardly therapists seem unproblematic. Look at Psychology Today and its free advertising for whatever insane or intervention called some game term. Since these institution that constitute the paradigm under discussion on MIA–inasmuch as Bob Whitaker has not focussed on the extrajudicial nightmare of most consequence just yet–are licensed and legal to use for doing nothing great, we very predictably can expect to keep watching them do nothing great in either APA or NIMH stated terms even, all the while continually misrepresenting the relevant value judgments about case outcomes and, hence, reform needs, so obscenely. My problem above ended up having left my particulars too obscure in case it mattered that someone could follow some of the considerations. People making waves as best they can now are not just reinventing Szasz or replacing his terminolgy with their own, however similar their take on the meaning of shared principles for promoting abolishment–as that implies no mistakes allowed from coercion or labelling anymore. And be your own doctor.

  • Thank you, Brett. Good hunches about something afoot can often not come to you with clear perceptions of the environment that occasions them, as we all know. My issues with CBT just are the quieting down of the issues of the proliferation of insupportable disagnoses, such as we have increasingly seen–or that tendency ongoing in how its groups get their work and word out along with the colonization of independent survivor efforts at direct patient or peer survivor advocacy. The talk of its scienc-iness also goes on a little long and gets somewhat hackneyed for failing to say what it as a program is all about: compatibility with the current paradigm to no end of the ease with which it can command psychiatry’s attention with its results. I mean that in my DPAFU handbook, the details for some ordinary example of what that could all mean for a consumer (that is, to have “waited” on their neat label) are hinted at to the end of leading you to feel assured that you are in the right program now. Since the book can’t talk or stop you from talking and inject you, we’re all fine again. On the other hand, the several bywords aimed at clinicians themselves for getting this “unpopular label” to command some attention, are all left in the language of saying all that can be said about the poor undiagnosed and undrugged and stigmatized among the masses. Clearly, practitioners know that breathing a word of anything appearing shakily unreal about everyday experiences, in the majority of clinical settings in behavioral healthcare for decades has led from to bad to awful results for years for numerous individuals. CBT advocates sure know and noticeably want it thought most appropriate if kept inexplicit. What’s up with that?

  • I didn’t want to go all out like this, but my button didn’t stop. As this isn’t proofed for honest moral considerations, it might not say the same as the corrected one below, and I’m sorry about that. It can be overlooked and hopefully Emmeline will rescind it since I disavow it. Please Emmeline, if you are willing to believe that, that was sent hastily and in error by forgetting what my obligations were in regard to freedom of expression. My bad.

  • bpd – I think they realize that they have an ad hoc argument in hand, so they are intentionally aiming not to highlight the things you suggest. What that is not nefarious, but only arises from misconception, would motivate them to throw their winnowing out of casework by example idea into the mix? Desire for publication and knowing you can’t publish anything great, since your theories haven’t shown definitive results, isn’t an adequate excuse in the helping professions for staking the claim to your turf, either. But I would suppose that they could only be meaning and hoping to also gear something back having to do with external criticism by juggling some appearances and changing up the pitches and smart talk overlays, and then add to that good work with the intention to suggest stimulating new empirical results by changing the population arrested for behavioral healthcare’s scientific purposes. Meanwhile, you surely thought of all this, and still more understanding was behind your reply, no doubt, as indicated by your reading and the link you enabled. I only want to add that having schizophrenia as the golden ring of all that psychiatry means to neuroscience and psychiatry’s own public relations efforts, for brandishing selectively in reaction to changing purposes, particularly whenever the chips are down, keeps it as an insitution safe from lethal or decimating harm in its coercive formulation, as long as the Academy and the press like most things most the way it needs and likes things, too. We are just waiting around if we aren’t focussing on movement principles almost verbatim as laid out in the Szaszian critique, and newer alternative human rights approaches very like it in their purposes. It gets hard for most people to see what gives the lie to every little justification for intervention as suits the beast we are fighting, and fighting with it to get fixed up nice isn’t going to make the press less lazy or higher education more socially determined about trying do what’s right for us all. We will just see more people there than ever in those professions getting along with each other, staying busy praising the kind of opportunity freedom gave them, and damning the poor communications about all what was going so wrong before the corruption was really ripe enough to handle.

  • bpd – I think they realize that they have an ad hoc argument in hand, so they are intentionally aiming not to highlight the things you suggest. What that is not nefarious, but only arises from misconception, would motivate them to throw their winnowing out of casework by example idea into the mix? Desire for publication and knowing you can’t publish anything great, since your theories haven’t shown definitive results, isn’t an adequate excuse in the helping professions for staking the claim to your turf, either. But I would suppose that they could only be meaning and hoping to also gear something back having to do with external criticism by juggling some appearances and changing up the pitches and smart talk overlays, and then add to that good work with the intention to suggest stimulating new empirical results by changing the population arrested for behavioral healthcare’s scientific purposes. Meanwhile, you surely thought of all this, and still more understanding was behind your reply, no doubt, as indicated by your reading and the link you enabled. I only want to add that having schizophrenia as the golden ring of all that psychiatry means to neuroscience and psychiatry’s own public relations efforts, for brandishing selectively in reaction to changing purposes, particularly whenever the chips are down, keeps it as an insitution safe from lethal or decimating harm in its coercive formulation, as long as the Academy and the press like things that most the way it needs and likes things, too. We are just waiting around if we aren’t focussing on movement principles almost verbatim as laid out in the Szaszian critique and alternative human rights approaches very like it. It gets hard for most people to see what gives the lie to every little justification for intervention as suits the beast we are fighting, and fighting with it to get fixed up nice isn’t going to make the press less lazy or higher education more socially determined about trying do what’s right for us all. We will just see more people there than ever getting along with each other, and praising the kind of opportunity freedom gave them, and damning the poor communications about all what was going so wrong before the corruption was really ripe enough to handle.

  • That’s good to know about your work on this issue, Sharon. Did you catch the recent link to the paper discussing the five European psychiatrists publishing a pilot research article for inventing “towards” a new definition of “mental health”? They as well as intend to make cognitive therapy of whatever kind prescriptive of what it means to be human–ideological sweet-smelling crap from front to back, by your oppressors. Since the data and theoretics for cognitive psychology won’t sustain the effort to build an ontology that supports it, then once again, the clinical applications and treatment modalities in sum total will just leave out the whole person, and this will eventually become clearer over time. The relationship in therapy counts a priori somehow, and Beck et al. must get tired of that fact showing up their work, and as much as they go along with meds and whatever else. As usual, we need the science but our interpretations have to be much wiser than the official rubrick allows. Something about respect and mutual consideration modifies the clinical encounter and allows personality changes to happen, which as I understand it only can come about if the whole personality is present for the “helped” person who must also count as one who observes the changes. Probably we change our personality in its elemental structure when we rather wouldn’t when getting physically or psychologicaly beaten down, but what is worse we have no reliable help then in seeing the evidence of how we went about our work at it, nor any trustworthy assistance to alert us to what we chose to act on in order to give it a go. So trying to avoid something that seemed even more painful to put up with from the abuse or disregard, or from the potential range of the other problems we believed it might cause if not “compensated” for, suggests very much that is substantial along the lines of common sense for bolstering the plausability of your trauma model. If we accounted for such things as the motor skills and reaction times for committing actions in emergency response to threats, the model for PTSD, generally, could work for every pathological state of self-sustaining disorder in cognition. But the relationship would outdo the focus on some theory, then, too.

  • Aria – Beautifully stated and such a kind reminder of what can happen if doctors are good at their jobs, even if nothing gets reformed besides some mainstreaming of our route of access to legal recourse (like by critical psychiatrists, maybe?) for pursuing reviews of our diagnoses for anyone who would like to sue the bad doctors…. I can’t think of any blogposts on that, or would link them for you. Sorry.

  • Sorry that got worded ambiguously–I definitely didn’t see that until now! He made the wordplay into foul play, is something I still can’t think how to say in the style I wanted. But maybe then again it was too much for me to say intelligently with all the contempt hitting me full force. His contempt as it surfaces in this jibe against you actually reminds me of nothing less than what hate speech is meant for. (See Nat Hentoff’s “Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee”–) My own contempt for Dr. 22’s malignant, hateful action was probably too overwhelmingly happy for me to recognize for me to stay creative.

  • Someone Else – Outrageously aggressive and malevolent foul play made of his play on words for your “benefit”. Foul play, when it sinks to the level of making fun of your case right in the paperwork for it, creates evidence that points at its author’s swollen head and puny conscience. Let’s all figure out how to say goodbye with you to Dr. 22, somehow. Forever.

  • Stephen – I continue to enjoy the evolution of your viewpoint on how the responsible authorities you know and help to educate go about mediating the irresponsible attitudes they are willing to choose. We can reasonably assume that their first step is to try to call this pragmatic and in support of good intentions, as they next must set out to play truth or consequences some more with distressed people’s bodies and minds. Please keep us up on your firsthand study and outline of these and other contextual determinants, specifically as they reveal how psychiatrists are crossing the lines to use their inmates’ degraded legal rights status to justify their ignorance and suspicion of the less convenient information sources for making their power appear socially essential and medically helpful. Of course, my interest in the meaning of their understanding you as a survivor–which to me means forcibly detained in order to keep misinformed, mainly–is the motive for my saying thanks a lot for your effort. You get the revolutionary tasks brought to life that have to do with maintaining your reaction to this strange American injustice so that it is really evidence of creative maladjustment in service and protection of human rights. Such a nice show of vocational interest all around is terrifically sharing of you, and your friendliness kept in evidence through your work situation is the truth of conscience speaking on the right plane for getting the sharing to count.

  • David, Thanks for seeing to keeping us up on the parameters for your view of global warming and the way to discuss it, and you really work in the significant transitions in your focus on variety of substantial issues and their human rights implications in an expert way, I think. The simple fact that ECT is in itelf an alarming prospect for any appealing variety of social arrangements that we can imagine and consider is the fine common sense verdict that it is, of course. That medicine wants to controvert this rationally founded judgment so audaciously has nothing to do with science, unless it is of a type that aligns itself directly with the eugenics causes psychiatry still means to inculcate if it can, while at the same time distancing itself from the historical reminders of its many anti-humanistic interests in the name of the status quo and opportunism in every regard.

  • Hi Dr. Torbert, I came back to take a look at your ideas after spending lots of time studying to put the first batch of them in context. Now some experience has come to mean more than I could have expected, which was a little more than average as a healing kind of one. Otherwise–that is, if it had not revealed the overlap off all the discourses directed at recovery with those for renewal, I would pretty much have insisted that the word “adjustment” taken in the most scientifically psychological sense was the whole story, at least until advances happened and something gave in neuroscience. Truthfully, I understand scientific proof well enough that no matter that this all went and happened without misstep or failed proposition one, that the evidence which would prove what a mental disorder was would still exist in a highly dubious conditon, as it obviously never has been otherwise than misappropriated from any sufficiently rigorous framework for its dissection as a useful concept. My stage of appreciation for the shamanistic theories as your book might discuss them is at this point: since my “Dark Night of the Soul” of a few days ago exactly followed a peak experience of self-realization, that itself showed me what I already knew (from good rational argument) to be the case, about the mind and the activity of it that meant my being me; and since my self-described energy counsellor had understood that the two things implied each other–the uplift and the disrupted sense of perception of everyday things; and because he had gently warned me to expect a less readily anticipated discontinuity in my further adjustment following this one extraordinary moment of insight–very freeing and of lasting effect in itself, as you would understand– I can’t omit the significance of the mystical tradition for defining optimal mental health or mental health problems as something to be cleverly assumed as scientific. The probability of good rational discrimination for functional and genetic explanations seems significant enough either way. (Of course, “genetic” here means a type of planned presentation of inferences, and not something biological that makes me intend and do what I hate or can’t help, or something.) Or call this elusive pattern of existing optimal effectiveness in human living pscyhological wellbeing, or whatever. At least, I cannot dismiss the practicality of the concept of spiritual suffering and rebirth and so on, getting misunderstood as bona fide –shall we say–mental illness, until I understand the other side of the coin, because the shamanistic tradition is not fully speaking my language yet. That other side of the coin I am telling about is a little more stubborn in revealing its secrets. If me, a very logically oriented type of thinker, with no holds barred views of atheism besides, and plenty of forgiveness for romantics in all their faults and follies, could see this step toward better functioning well-outlined in either the jargon of the behavioral healthcare system (let’s say it’s best selected jargon), or that of some mystic system, then I have to rationally understand something more still in order to apprehend the full meaning of my pattern of lived experience through these couple of recent days. That makes for the pressure and the motive to work at it. That since it works out succinctly and rigorously enough seen in either the ancient or the modern dynamic, and my experience teaches me still to look at the originary appearance of my dysfunction as just a cognitive neuroscience affair to figure out, is not an idle observation. This is a fully intutive take of mine on the whole issue nevertheless, too, and not just some kind of hunch. But also it is not just a resistance or bias, merely. It’s indicative of a real predilection, surely, but it also suggests a barrier that shamanism must explain, and that there is a logic for understanding it. I won’t doubt that we can somehow extend the evidence of “mental health recovery” from employing these mystical systems’ terms in order to explain things chronologically from start to finish. Or that we can’t find the overlap to most all of what is pertinetn that we have good record of via primitive and non-Western traditions, as neuroscience develops more honest, holistic approaches. I already have come to understand that spiritual healing techniques could not fail to answer the need for replacing the cults of authority operating in psychology and psychiatry unboundedly these days, with just a little determined legwork and site inspection done in careful ways. In turn, the harm reduction would prove tremendous, even if the key result was gaining more serious present understanding of the worth of medications in more estimably neutral conditions for evaluating their effects in individual cases. In everything from such unsupportable, and always vaguely informative and questionably valid diagnoses as those pushed onto us–diagnoses of nothing medically identifiable in causal terms–to the traditions of playing doctor and used wife salesman inaugurated by Freud, I can’t see how anyone thinks we can reform a purposefully repressive and oppressive system of teaching us what to like about ourselves by calling us these names. They only then stand to get revised a lot and never has one gotten explained properly that I know of, except to shoe that they bolster the authority of the physician, or give outs to clinicians all around for the tricky differences between “found” between them all. Yet I have struggled to see this done to my own benefit in all the likeliest best places until I just want to argue about it until the people insisting on its value to me go away. Additionally, for all novel the differences in terms of genuine reciprocity that could come into generally good public regard with this type of mediation of various practical efforts to help the mentally ill, the same standards could apply that make the energy healer’s counsel appear as real human relations work. For instance, in its remaining impersonal and provided according to systematic feedback to point out errors in learning new coping strategies correctly. Still, as much as science fires my imagination and encourages me to believe things only for a reason that leaves further questions possible, and inasmuch as mysticism only informs the mystic properly since experience just is its ultimate medium, I have to continue to call my judgment provisional about identifying spiritual crises as the equivalent in some systematic way of mental health ones. But I am definitely more enthusiastic to read your work now ahead of other books on the subject. Hopefully, that can work out to be pretty soon.

  • Hi Jobos, Thanks for declaring your interest in getting the facts straight–that is comforting indeed, and a good reminder to reconsider the truth of as well. Also, you should most definitely not think of any drug as possibly curing you of some mental disorder, as you probably know, since the idea of that proving to be the case is just incoherent if you understand what is meant by the myth of mental illness. None of them could heal you except that you did some work with your experience, and also somehow benefited from the drug experience by getting ideas you could only learn of that way. Doing work on yourself is what psychedelics tend to inspire, and so one would think that the literature that points that out would have more worth to re-investigating their potential benefits. It used to. The fact seems so essential, that if the researchers in the video haven’t stated it, I would just think “here we go again” with their keeping trade secrets about every little mental thing. The decade of the brain–what a sad joke. You can learn the most, probably, if–besides looking for that level of disclosure–you were to read descriptive literature that is not promoting any kind of trips and not supplying you with any knowledge of the means to do so for yourself, as I’m sure you have imagined. Also, from personal experience: when I entered college, since acid was around a lot, the school itself held a free seminar in which someone who knew the facts who was an academic gave us all the tips of what it would typically do to you when taken, and nothing bad was said. To my luck, drug awareness classes where I grew up also were handled like this, even by the female gym teacher, even in ninth grade. No kind of curse got put on the temptation to experiment, just lots and lots of facts and ideas came out about varieties of impairment and pleasure/displeasure from the intoxicating effects as seen in different situations, and mentions were made of the increased health risks from developing recreational habits. I advocate the abolition of drug laws, but “drugs of choice” is my attitude about what someone needs available, anyway, including in mental health practice. I think we should be willing to patiently convince persons about why drugs aren’t helping them as much as they think a lot more often ,and believe that compliance should never be forced. We should also never use childish word games to make ourselves feel big and smart, like calling forced injections “sedatives” when they are creepy tranquilizers.

  • Hi Someone Else – Just wanting to let you know that I meant to let you see that your statement got me up to speed because of how you connected with the meaning of empowerment in knowledge. I had intended not to explain the big picture so much as put the “other” half of the err on the safe side position into focus in terms that you introduced first. Unfortunately, as much as I love these conversations about controlled substances, that doesn’t keep me getting disgusted with myself when some passing traffic triggers a flashback sequence that sends my motor reflexes into action like it was fifteen years ago with me reacting to evade some riding mishap. This also sort of wipes my mind clean. Your carefully thought out comment hear provoked some good rational considerations of what some callers to an open line NPR show on this issue told me about both the lack of knowledge problem with opiates and doctors, their exaggeration of what suits themselves best to believe, and the view that pain can wait. So, if my statements don’t make literal sense enough, it’s because when my concentration disappeared, I just thought what I knew and said something. Like if you are in a workgroup where nothing exact has to get said. But I meant it. You are an accepting person, and also like to keep the facts straight, so please understand that my intentions were along the lines of that approach to. If we can’t meet doctors as equals with our best ideas and meaningful sources of information, so that they care to think of us as individuals and their equals, too, we are lost. And we can’t get as far with the asymmetry of their power to decide what is best for us versus bringing us to see what our real options are more definitely, and actually counselling us about those without prescribing. We could get the drugs we wanted for ourselves and don’t need their monkeyshines in the way is my position.

  • S. E., True. We have to home in on the side of this you’re attending to mostly in your comment, and emphasis on good informed consent is the perfect point to make explicit. The chief problem that is symbolic of the nature of the professional failings that add to the lack of informed consent epidemic has to do with physician’s not really very often at all understanding or caring to keep up to date on the difference between psychological dependence and addiction. One problem would be that all they think counts is what comes to them with their name on it as Dr. Y or X. The humanities sources on addiction like Jim Carroll’s Basketball Diaries and de Quincy’s Confessions of an English Opium Eater also lead you closer to keeping the facts straight, as long as you are not just a liar and don’t care what help you need to be. Since the problem here is really stubborn-ness and too much power, not the dangers of what people decide for themselves if they get information and have freedom to choose their way, responsibly, according to conscionable laws.

  • And peck. Yes, witch hunt is always good to bring up. So’s Carrie Nation and what Mother Nature intended. I suppose my approach was oblique in comment terms. But along this obvious front it connects well enough if you work at it. I hope you are doing better and feeling good, and nice to see you back.

  • Dr. Steingard, My appreciation for your informed and common sense set of considerations is very thoroughgoing. As for the abolition concept, wow, what a job to wield that term here. But it just intends outlawing psychiatry that can’t keep itself consensual and contractual. And one would think that meets close enough to absolutely to fit with perfectly comprehensible adjudicatory rules for the most exceptional varieties of need, and the principles that go with them. What passes for daily operations in hospitals right now is nothing like what suggests principles, except for pre-emptive retaliation. No efforts are made to see who got triply diagnosed who had some traumatically induced problems all the years that the major mental illnesses ruled the diagnostic day. But you are giving Will and everyone great advice, and I also agree with most of his of sentiments and judgments of what needs looked into more and done better. Your commenting and choice of words seems distinctly encouraging for continuing the debate. Much else said in the thread seems to me like taking the point of every point of Will’s discussion, no matter how far-reaching or evocative of new ideas, to stand for no other opportunity than chiefly to arrive at a popular consensus and declare a slam dunk.

  • Sally – Hi, I agree with your agreement. Barrab offers a tremendous alternative focus. Encouragingly presented, since it is so streamlined and he aims to stay precise. As for this corruption, the main corruption for us, how about the civil rights abuses? All the “care abuses” get supported and indeed enabled by the fact that the involuntary commiment strategies are terrifically corrupt and disempowering. The excuse-making that stands as your “legal benefit” with the (apparently only used by celebrities a lot) insanity defense, likewise as with the forced detentions, obviously is the psychiatrists game fixer, too. The idea of finding all the solutions with shifting payment schedules and retreading care with alternative services can’t work without finally this problem with using people to fit the agenda of the helping professions getting at least thought of.

  • This link is from the references for the article itself looks like the most general one for checking out the neuroscience behind using imagery for self-help. I thought the potential benefit vs. detriment was explained well in the article posted, but the surveyed run of ideas of how to keep clients “deciding right for themselves” about “how to get better” had its usual screwy undertones of “because then you needed us” showing up as their motivation from time to time.

    http://dbic.dartmouth.edu/~carolyn/pdfs/Christian_2015_JOCN.pdf

  • Not only that with the environments through which you “encounter” them as part of the equation. Saying to your face or for you to hear that you don’t know what you are doing when you suggest you would rather leave your hospital behind or try some other therapy routine is exactly calling you stupid in terms of their jargon. And it isn’t just a substitute way of declaring you “not competent to stand trial” either. They mean that you are some sort of biological goof-up and so take the drugs, take the drugs, take the drugs, and when your insurance runs out you can go. John Nash is really hitting us with a nice favor, in diverting the focus to something so grand and proud to connect your spirit and potential life meaning to, isn’t he? NIce to see that kind of follow through with him, still.

  • Jill- Way to get on the issues front to back. The little mention of correspondence of results in animal studies is the right twist in the research side for all this, too. But that’s definitely not to miss saying that your quick delivery of the inside scoop on the recruitment and retraining measures implied by new regs is particularly great to have spelled out as well. You might believe my side of the story from the Breggin empathic conference in Michigan a couple of months back, and find it relevant considering the DEA side of the story here. That is the most outstandingly impressive story of great counselling work was from a self-trained for the job physician. (Breggin likes to suggest non-professional equivalency is attainable for plenty of counselling work.) Dr. Tom Ryan, pediatrician is steadily and as he tells it, very pleasantly working to counter the ADHD epidemic where he lives, from his position at the most viable entry point for keeping the story straight. He also describes himself as a full-fledged libertarian in the social causes arena. He said the he had simply resolved one night at home with his wife, who is also in pediatrics, to stop giving ADHD prescriptions and start explaining without exception that there was no such thing. He henceforth had proceeded to demonstrate in his offices that kids would listen to him and behave well in front of their parents if he was firm, respectful, and authoritative in their eyes, and his self-arranged promotion and implementation of this therapeutic-engagement measure was sitting at 100% success to date. Of course, the counselling generally had to get directed to not letting the parents lie to themselves about what the child’s sudden good behavior meant. The numbers were still climbing in the middle double digits for him, but he shows no interest in looking back and so he is bound to stand out like a real opponent of the system, more every day. He also assured me that his notion of the corrective way to go with all pharmaceutical abuse is to aim for total information availability and no prescription needed type of access, resulting in no in-office sales of proven efficacy that the doctor then endorses on the spot. Full deregulation, I take it, to keep the doctor tail from wagging the Pharma dog back into their offices over and over. Then the slick undermining of the doctor-client relationship can’t happen as we see it is bound to in the current environment, and also so as to ensure de-mystifying arrangements for any kind of drug dispensing arrangements–mass anti-addiction remedial treatments not excepted. What would that do here? Why is it scary? What kind of solution is the traditional regulatory model of picking and choosing of licensed authorities and the assigning of outlets–according to special privileges for these special people who then get to have their special regulation- worthy franchises?

  • Margaret, Like Alex says, it’s the one in a million insider that defeats the dehumanizing pranks–prolifically intended in textbooks and tests and licensing procedures–for classifying the life out of people. They might as well just let caregivers CLEP out if they swear by the words “I do” not to question any label and not to oppose any detention or coercive restraint of any type, just in case, no matter who says with their normal voice. “Let’s be sure to default toward the safety zone we keep the handiest” is close enough to be the motto at work here in these fifty states. Thank you for the challenging viewpoint on the causes and their meanings and the precise remarks.

  • Dr. Caplan, Many nuances obtain to the concept of informed consent in psychiatric and psychologically monitored clinical situations, so much differently than with medicine. This is another chance to question the description of behavioral healthcare as entailing medical diagnosis and having its treatments qualified as medical in nature. Focus on this issue now in reference to psychiatry as actually a pseudomedical effort should come to mean several book projects if there exists really widespread concern about psychiatric harms getting accounted for. Hegemonists for the establishment and do-gooders alike rely too often on obscuring the distinctions between medical understanding and the way psychiatric diagnosis depends on medicine as a prop. We need a publishing house to get a good editorial heads up about what is and isn’t working out as advocacy and care some time in this decade. Rereading your article reminds me that it is time for the big step from the expose’ to issuing progressive versions of the edicts for change.

  • Marie, You have real clarity in your perspective, so don’t let it slide. The concern you raise is valid and remains valid at the highest levels of deciding what is going on with people and how we should say anything about them–in the sciences of the mind, the philosophies of them, and the various academic critiques, too. Your comment is a pleasure to encounter here. I think Dr. Hickey stays cogent because his overall purpose is constrained by very clear principles. His effort to unmask fraud and shed light on the needless suffering psychiatry creates or ignores is made in a highly pragmatic fashion and according to principles that are very sound. Usually, sadly, in practice, the disease concept is very immediately made wholly literal, and then the supposed disease of mind just magically appears on paper and in every caregiver’s mind. It gets seen around the hospital and by everyone the labelled person ever meets again–almost everyone, that is. Since it is understood as the doctor’s province to declare this mental disease real and dangerous, the doctor will and does and let’s everyone know it however and whenever the doctor likes. Since it can’t be made to go away, the person is just there for this unpredictable and perniciously unhuman disease to make use of.

    Clearly, you see how that routine way of enforcing dependency and compliance works. I just wanted to say that Dr. Hickey to my way of thinking is consciously working toward a point that takes correct account of the facts in all his articles, including the demanding ones that your comment is concerned with. So his semantic discussion seems to me to be limited to the help that this part of deconstructing psychiatric rhetoric contributes for reaching the further goal of raising awareness of the drug plague, in particular, and of therapy for how it always counts. We can rely on him time and again for making more accurate representations of the whole truth than the mainstream bothers to promote. And he hardly represents some extreme of antipsychiatry, I should add. He wants the right processes to take effect so that behavioral healthcare means what it says when it says anything, and so that it works out to proves its value to external critics, too. Whether that can happen in our lifetime, except that all the external critics are happy credentialists just rubberstamping the policies of every other credentialist with some nifty entitlements that Obamacare enables for them all, seems like an open question to me.

  • Fast and fair, Dr. Hickey. Really great work. I wish we had more people going proxy for your kind intentions, so that the hotly critical language you give back to psychiatric slanderers wasn’t taken for attacking every single psychiatrist personally. To me, you are submitting testimony that helps anyone conscientious about how to try to be safe and helpful in their practice amid remarkably scandalous goings on. And I mean for securing their capacity to have independent voice as underlings to the professional KOLs. No doubt the trade journals and administration centers and professional groups see the few as needing safe haven over the many, and the many ordinary psychiatrists suspect this at times, but the little guys should learn to see how to get more out of your systematic critique in the run-up to making the idea of abolition more popular here. Maybe they will learn how to read it and talk it over less fearfully and bitterly one day at a time.
    Thank you for the inspiration yet again.

  • B – Listen, the fact is that zonker medication can bring feeling back into focus if you have gotten out there and too diffuse with it or too ungrounded or too estranged from what your anxiousness was about. Pick the description that seems to fit the imaginary or remembered case of getting uncomfortably out there with how your feelings start to resonate too shallowly with your body. The problem is the protocols thereafter the desired effect is achieved are too doctinaire and misguidedly applied. All is oversimplification in hospitals with the diagnostic assumptions programmed into the psych-bot squads. You have your “true” problem “unmasked” or since the “right” drug worked they know “which disorder” was “cured”, etc. Not only does this go on forever, it’s neverendingly a pitiful laugh and every bit as disturbing to contemplate as Someone Else suggests. But it’s a breeze to balance your remarks and include the fact of happy accidental moments of recovery happening simultaneously to getting treated for the inappropriate label. The hard thing is the hospital over there with the clueless hammering the powerless like they are human nails. My recovery of feeling on monkey barrel doses of Seroquel was inappropriate treatment protocol. But it worked. If we had good instead of totally entitlement-rentseeking doctors here, that would have gotten examined for potentially being an off-label prescription success. But let’s not start asking questions too fast, mad doctors! But for my flipping out about having lost my perspective to depersonalized reflections and whatever else, since episodes of panic used to visit me a lot, just overlapping and repeating on top of each other, and determine all sorts of quasi-attention deficits and space me out worry me, the Seroquel just the one time was worth it. The culprit bottomline was massive stress, though, so that doesn’t mean Seroquel answered as the necessary thing, it just was the thing tried. Sedatives proper would probably have been better, but Oh, no, not that.

    So, anyway, as I sit recalling this, it’s also the case that my emotions are percolating less distractingly in regard to how come there is so little very fine-grained criticism aimed at the decrepit paradigm from within, from the academy, & from the press. And that’s good. We see more of our share of the telling signs of the mental health industry under fire because of the labors of, generally speaking, very true critics here on MIA, and necessarily also see more to general significance of the intermittent or even steadily increasing appearance of overt criticism in the wider free press. But it’s like we are seeing the pregnant women more now that the neighbor is showing. On the other side of the coin, people who haven’t gotten forced or blithely duped into using the standard run of assembly line services are themselves as unalerted as ever to the exact height of the conflict between those dismissive of psychiatry-led behavioral science culture, and its greatest lackeys.

  • Let me tell you where head is at, basicalky, about general things that apply to me and my own case, Someone Else, so that you can see what points of your own you can connect from. I don’t want to go into the what happened question in detailed respects, but everything wrong with me is something occasioned by abuse, bad medicine (juju would have been better in the end) and talking cures (there have been clearly positive and “life-saving” exceptions, but more waitresses, cops, lawyers, and bus drivers have listened with natural interest and helpful feedback overall), and imminently fatal endangerments throughout my life (such is life). Some of these violent encounters were hostile and intended, but mostly it was accidental and traffic related sudden threats of death, dismemberment or disfigurement that seemed to set the standards for maladaptive reactions much later on, and the disabling CNS functioning that came on eventually with repeated doses of lousy treatment and malicious intent aimed at me later on–and that order is significantly causal, here, btw. That I didn’t cause a single one of these incidents suggests that they get called bad luck. Ok with me, in survivor terms, unforgiveable in justice terms. Certainly an eye for an eye is also not adequate. What you need is to alterations in the scheme of things and how people themselves have re-formed, and now repudiate their former antisocial justifications for themselves and their wrongdoings. That my response wasn’t to mope, shiver, and complain a lot made me worth less for people who say they like to help by talking to you, I do believe. But if anyone needs to mope, complain, and shiver, I feel sorry for them, too. I never saw a lot of acceptance going on, although tuning in to tge exceptional moments for myself and others and respecting and appreciating genuinely good listeners was and is my thing. You have to include the basic humanity of anyone who shows that in your vision of the possible, you know. Nevertheless, as far as licensed mental health professionals who have influenced my chances in life, what they could have helped with but instead didn’t, I could never see how to fathom, and all this incredible impatience of mine was for was just that they would try giving me advice about my cognitive issues and point out how to learn more about my problems (in thinkibg, feeling, and behaving) over all. That sounds so simple, but it was impossible to get done by shopping around for “relationships” any better or any more than I could trust myself to do as unlicensed efforts for myself. Mostly this was because of incompetence in clinical practice, strictly speaking, at least insofar as anything that I would train and give license to were I charged with the responsibility. Hence, the main issues with poor services in the fields in question stem from problems engendered and maintained by the total manifestation of the liberal Academy with its pretexts of self-sufficiency in preparing tomorrow’s workforce and the grand wizardry of its so hotly competitve inner workings. Next most often harmful for me, after outright inadequate preparation for their job, were the too often strange and unfriendly attitudes and bureaucratic mindsets pervasive throughout the industry, often enough worn like the cultural badge of honor it has eventually become. Last and least were the systemic problems associated with managed care. Go here, No, now there, Sorry, those were two good sessions but I have to switch to another town to practice, and my favorite, “Where is Doctor Lisa ______?” “Oh, you’re back with Dr. Joe.” What a laugh. And they mainly work in group formation to get you isolated from yiur natural support system, and work together to make sure they sell you drugs, and just their drugs, like it or not. What a lost cause. Anyway, my issue very briefly as it corresponds to self-interests that keep you yourself busy learning how to study the Big Biz in the decade of the Brain (when is that not? I want to know), returns to this…. The best description of my problem in living in its main aspects shows up in a very good description of a long dead psychiatrist in the opening pages of the CBT manual for DPAFU, and the information is all downhill from there. The PTSD manual from the same clinical group really is not very good for much, but Oh, the measurements! and Oh, the science! is all we hear. For my part, I see the evaluation and exercise instructions to rather poorly encompass the psychiatrist’s appreciation of the phenomenality of the experiences assigned to the types of disorder. Understanding that it is some total kind of arrangement of disorder that I live and not some discrete and separable disorder that I have it definitely one very central fact that helps me to know, but these books like most caregivers everywhere just go along with whatever make believe is most expedient for them and their careers to go along with. I have understood that my disorder of agency can wholly be described as abnormal deviations in what is called intentionality in theories of agency and consciousness. But the manual approaches and vast majority of clinicians narrow very nearly everything down to fit the mapped out service options wherever anybody lives, and these all have first to do with doctors and other caregivers and assistants earning a name for themselves (of course only so much of one, it’s not glamorous in very many instances) and their paycheck and their scrubs. They get to live the unblemished life without those terrifically reassuring and inconspicuous labels, most of them. Many do know how to turn that into a thrill, too, I promise. Oh, these so hard to come by facts about these trades, what a bother. Most of the folks actally know very few right things to look for to see the unique aspect of any case they help to handle, and most contribute nothing but business as usual in the form of rounds of say-so to their clients and their charges, although mere smiles keep some people from going berzerk or ending their lives, I’m pretty sure. But I doubt you can help anyone whose needs are serious, over the long run, by making believe with them that there are these classes of drugs for these kinds of diseases and altogether alarming and bona fide threats that they don’t realize they probably are intending to carry out, and the doctor guessed them, so they have to stay locked up–and call that modern, humane care and bill them for it, and do a lot of good. But it is what is going on, mainly, all finally to prove that stigma is really bad and has to be fought with your help, too, by staying compliant and showing string dedication to the saviors one and all. Thanks for showing some old-fashioned curiosity, S. E. That’s like a weight off my shoulders.

  • Mark – I think you’re right, and that no matter the particulars of how sufficiently correct and true your idea is, what the necessary conceptions for reliably determining psychopathology are, they have to meaningfully indicate that the dogmatic conception of behavioral symptoms as medically decisive ones is the central theoretical and practical flaw in the curriculum for the behavioral sciences, and the incredible inappropriateness of the expensive approaches to behavioral healthcare we see now. Thought, feeling, and behavioral symptoms become pathenogenic entities in bad explanations, and then both the problems in living and the person at odds with themselves in the world are lost sight of. This is indeed the thought deriving from the mental habit of putting people into molds that fit their label. That is how mental illness gets construed as a reactive feature of physical processes in the brain, instead of a facon de parler and a myth. That is how people keep getting injured and killed, by legally mandated treatments, and by simpler, not infrequently well intended efforts to get people to accept the help they need to straighten themselves out, although so very plainly and liberally misguided efforts, no matter the body count. And never mind the loss of moral dignity and free choosing of their own purposes. Thanks for remembering the debacle going on here in the less free than ever country so clearly and instructively.

  • S. E. – Doctors also act in order to appear familiar with what they believe is expected of them. I hope Drs. Moncrieff, Steingard, and Jeremy Wallace, maybe evetually Jospeh Tarantolo get around to elaborating on the further points that your commentary indicates for what the doctors assume and claim to believe. These first three tend to discuss lots of examples of their fellows missing the point of their data sets and patient records, and acting wrongheaded in prescribing, and not questioning enough theoretically. But I hope they start getting around more to just how bad the average psychiatrist is at their job. If the psychiatrists I had seen running hospital wards and doing med checks had been sensible and willing to think for themselves, even without going into the myth of mental illness to straighten their staff’s attitudes out, they could have kept Robert Whitaker from having this job as the voice of psych reform. That is also why I think he should try to get that idea straight and talk about it. Szasz wasn’t someone who left the brain out of consideration, he thought that medicine doesn’t kick in except to isolate and remediate local physically pathological conditions of the body or the social conditions of epidemic contagion, which is not all medicine does but is right of course.

  • squash – I think you’d like that book, form other things you say, and it certainly makes for a snug fit with the whole history and mythology of psychiatry, on purpose. I wanted some context that you might have felt some need for with this headline, too, I mean in that in reacting to the article, your comment asserts the attitude of taking a step back to get a better angle for approaching the message implied, since it is intended to reach more than just us, the psych industry, & the popular press audience. Lots of cultural mythos jumps out if you are apt to consider the force of representations. Again, the cited book….

  • Margie – Your project keeps sounding like the very apt challenge to the system I suspect it will be, and imagining how it will turn out suggests to me plenty of dynamic innovations in sharing the survivor perspective on fighting for your dignity, sanity, zand not least of all your life. I was thinking you might find some value in this link to a paper which by contrast highlights credible formal psychological explanation of how you can come to find yourself haplessly “living the label” of your disorder. While still seeming very uniquely personable because of the ethnological interviews appended, the theoretical points appear succinctly illustrated in seeing how these survivors are caught up in running the gamut of decentered and displaced sense of social identity. You and your cohorts in the Dignity project may enjoy it. I found it very helpful to encounter earlier in my life when it felt like getting away from the oppressive and limiting feelings needing managed care would never happen.

    http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ipjp/article/viewFile/65636/53327

    I appreciate your supportive attitude here on MIA and feel so impressed by your careful work and professional experience, and especially by what people mean to you.

  • Dr. Berezin, you bring us a circle, here. I am sure that our first conscious experience of Mother’s gaze upon us is how we originally become acquainted to all the meanings we learn to attach to the concept of beauty, seen around us in the world, and then sometimes, not often enough, apprended as the touchstone residing within ourselves, remembered for who we humanly are.

  • Feeling: the right background for conceptual integration. If you have the right idea in the wrong frame of mind, you’re not going to get much done with it. I know that. Feeling grounded to the Earth seems most closely analogous to the phase of your seconds old infancy, that puts you securely into relationship with your Mother’s holding arms. (Be you both so lucky.) Love has to be free for us to come by, in terms of flowing feeling for another, and not just unconditionally motivated in how we direct our loving regards to those others whom we most love and care for.

    “Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground…” A perfect CSNY song for whoever misses their mother or anyone else’s from where they find themselves today.

  • Mickey – As smart as the first time I read it, and my comprehension of your comment is only more robust, for what concerns you point to and draw upon in providing needed qualifications for Mr. Braterman’s points, here. Since, as Ted always stresses, it’s about turning the thought into action. Thanks a lot (again), as well as in memory of Kenneth Braiterman.

  • Ted – Thanks for commenting at length, and getting so many points across in sympathy for the different perspectives on goals and outcomes needed from this point forward. How is this for a historical parallel? Remember how doctoring and curative surgical procedures took on meaning in early modern times with barbering. Barbers would lance your boils for some coin, then? What did we get later… doctors who wouldn’t wash their hands before “helping” birthing mothers with delivery, just about? Along with that they wouldn’t let midwives practice. Finally, in or around the Civil Rights Era, always keeping in step with the times, they went gungho for hysterectomies to cure every female complaint so-named, so that they could use it to hang their hat on … and their diagnoses on. Psychiatry is going through all the same advantage seeking and betrayals of trust at even higher rates of malfeasance and ever greater magnitudes of indifference toward harms visited on their own real neighbors. For certain, this indicates the protracted evil of dissolute corporate expansiveness and routine victimization of the less infranchised, all stemming from calling people’s brains their faultily constructed personality organ and getting it thought of as their God-given weakness. Next, in insisting that all the work is medical, and letting that stand true as demonstrated by there connectedness to power and authority proves, the mental healthcare incrowds busily join together in identifying the broken brain as the “thinking organ” they must carefully diagnose and expertly “treat”. Back in the day, you might have needed an amputation, and the surgeon got rough, so you would insult him behind his back long and hard. Then you could maybe show up at his early modern surgical convention and finally let him have it to his face. “You goddamned Barber!”, you could say. We have the role of heirs to such well-considered progressive innovations, too, as psychiatric survivors, having existed unintentionally as the patients who are recipients of the same types of mismatched derivations of applied treatment protocols as were the hapless “failures” and the first “saved” surgical patients were. But rather than boils for lancing giving way to bones for sawing, we stand to receive instead the kinds of attention for problems in living that stem from practices of torture and Frankensteinian conceptions of our genetics, so that clinicians can take us to be mere organisms existing in necessarily malconfigured states. But luckily, tgey maintain, we are at least waiting with justified hope on the soon to be made known optimal performance standards for our type of defective, so that we can have our illness explained right and voted on. Then we can get saved by psychiatry, instead of being failures who need restrained. Totally awesome, they teach, their new interns, we mentally ill people can enjoy the modern privilege of holding on until the doctors can succeed to fix us more right than Nature got us made. The ECT, drugs, and breaking of our wills in compliance regimens that are legally mandated–meanwhile, do wonders for Psychiatry’s humanely drawn future image, when the needed corrections to our brains, minds, and personalities more perfectly than ever will make us “safe” and “insightful” welcome citizens. From barbers to surgeons with the medical doctors, from blood-letting and castrating to saying “maybe we should talk more, now, after all,” with the psychiatrists. All of it thanks to demanding change from the people in charge more adamantly than we are asking them for better proof of wise intentions in the first place, and more clear analysis of the true results which they use to justify their efforts. But just until now–thanks so much to Robert Whitaker, we are asking about those results loud and long at last. The wise intentions from the industry and its governmental bureaucratic partners still are lacking, though, we can’t help but notice. Many of our differences of attitude and comfort level with what we’re all fighting and doubts about how to do it, appear because of how that affects us each differently, I think, … the not knowing: we feel our willingness to dialogue, see their accusing us of self-righteousness and refusing to dialogue, who really aren’t available to negotiate terms, anyway. The most credentialled and influential have connections to Power and drug marketing kickbacks. But they all across the country have parity fee coverage protection now, don’t they? The nicer ones, who we aren’t so mad at, in the greater numbers have these benefits in pretty standard form, too. We’re stuck here as survivors, until the systematic entitlements go away, along with the illusion of better moral judgment by licensed experts in forced drugging campaigns and the lie of actual medical revolutions in psychiatric services.

  • S. E. I think it is more simply just what inverse means, as in when you talk about gravity or light getting more or less intense according to the “inverse” significance of the distance relations between the light or gravity “source” (since it takes two to gravitate, or to get light to shed light upon something actually gotten seen in the light) and the “object” receiving the illumination or getting attracted (more than the “main” gravity source gets attracted by it). Let’s see what B says back in clarification, if he does, and figure more of your question out though for what it means for your theories of what couldn’t be right about what you were told by doctors, and what you understand is right to believe. I can’t immediately see what B is bringing in about Stockholm sybdrome that bears upon your question relative to the inverse relationships that qualify the survey reported on here. At least, I can’t see right off the bat what experiences he means it to account for that are “inversely”effective on perceived outcomes intended to be “good work” done on mental patients.

    Very simply, the statement you offered in quotes means what you would guess by thinking in analogy with the mathematical terms for force and light dispersion getting Weaker with More distance, and Stronger with Less distance. The inverses in the equations are about the Weaker effects corresponding to the More distant conditions in the respective physical systems, and the Stronger effects to the Less distant conditions.

    So, the good “high” quality of therapeutic relationships meant simultaneously Less hostility or symptom severity factored in the determination. When the judgment reflected More hostility and/or Greater symptom severity, then the reported therapeutic relationship quality was “low” and therefore bad… in correspondence to how the symptoms that were present were bad ones and the hostile feelings meant “No dice if Ihave to keep talking to this jerk.”

  • Margie, per your added commentary and insightful reactions to how Nancy spelled out her convictions and beliefs, I want to say you have a great sense of the value to every moment for how it matters for good. You really make things doubly worth paying attention to several times over that were effectively strong messages to begin with, amidst much clamor in the surrounding social world. In the most matter of fact terms, Thomas Szasz described that he looked at cases like Nancy’s, like he would look at mine or Chris Reed’s and the whole range of them for any others, and what he saw was the proof of the validity of his critique of the psychiatric mind control system. He saw what really happens, that if psychiatry gets its way with labels and coercion, you end up with prosecutions of persons for having mental illness itself. You can get prosecuted not just for delusion about “having” the mythical disease and seemingly remaining a threat for letting it fester and get uglier and more contagious. You get prosecuted for schizophrenia, bipolar, dissociation., and so forth, outright. That is the ultimate consequence and the mainspring of the attracting powers of widespread adherence to and tolerance of the medical model coupled to the many orthodox pychological approaches that endorse it. These clinicians’ strategic goal as revealed here by Nancy’s story, and in the endless number of other courtroom farces, once these caregivers finally decide they cannot get to your run your life and bill you for it any other way, is to run you into the wall of nonsense that means you aren’t allowed to think or ask questions. At one and the same time that you suffer distress according to the “Law”, you are not allowed to have this real distress under the same Law. But the doctors can get to have you and put your chances for health freedom fast asleep, as many cases of this doing of time for no purpose illustrate. Very significantly, the majority of hospital doctors are not just insensitive in taking your freedom away from you, they are also terrible at their caregiving and diagnosing and prescribing job to begin with. Because they don’t have to be good at it, do they? This is all definitely so much more than the implication of health bondage. Getting prosecuted for bipolar is Kafkaesque at its heart and totalitarian in its aims, behind its Nanny State pseudo-care image. Health freedom now! is right.

  • Rob – On that note, I myself would offer a rejoinder to another person commenting in respect to the feed of information you have selected if it weren’t put so as to immediately catch your eye–most likely anyway, to see what their comment was about. Mainly people are not through with the bygone, much less the inaccurate, invalid, and obscure passed off for pure wisdom, until they decide on the positive emphasis they like for themselves and are understanding where to put it more determinedly or more in depth. My idea of what to feature if covering your responsibilities would certainly not come from more of a grand plan, and nothing else than what tends to appear has seemed needed, except what plainly wouldn’t work for updates from/on pertinent news. The related posts selections are also adequately available, I believe, to satisfy “the embarrassment of riches” kind of motivation had by the more acquisitive subscribers here, who are presently reinforcing their views or clarifying and weighing their personal position statements a lot on myriad things.

  • Ok, super attention getting and it really seems about time for research like this. The kind of boost to the imaginations of scientists, given amplification by real specifically focused breakthroughs to new investigative modes of work such as this, is very worth the anticipation. Also, as science fiction has shown, class wars come to be fought over just such scientific knowhow as this could turn out to mean. Hopefully, follow-up reports and commentary are standing by for understanding the connections to our already real one.

  • Ms. Altman, I hope you can make good use of the chance to tell “John” that people are thinking of him and tge part of his life story that you shared in more ways than anyone could imagine. That you can assure him that you proved that he can find someone caring to understand each part of his personal story and every possible way of imagining how to react to his situation that they can think of. You really have made a smart, humane move in committing your acts in the fight against social injustice to the form of the written word.

  • Awesome careful attention to facts of emotional wellbeing, when the trick is very, very hard to turn…
    great job done so far!

    David, keeping your learning experience totally personal proves the larger point of how casual prescriber attitudes toward anti-depressant medications imperil the trusting client. Your set of entirely personal motives, to keep every fact of your experience straight and communicate the imperative nature of taking charge of all decisions for yourself, helps convey the optimal attitude for withdrawal efforts and self-help get most carefully considered. This is a great story for practitioners to learn from, and I know that lots of readers put two and two together and recognize that how you have to think and act to take care of yourself like this tells you what kind of person to look for in seeking therapy and healthcare more generally. Not to give up or sell yourself short are my two favorite messages to take away from this piece.

  • Thank you for the follow up and rich focus on all essential matters of context, for how we get from here to there in harm reduction, predicting and assessing efficacy, and deciding why to care, Dr. Carey. To leave my interests fully disclosed, and for one reason since I’m not aiming to practice in the fields of the human sciences myself, let me explain how this article and your views matter for me in respect to the universe of discourse and issues of surviving psychiatry, personally. Very abbreviatedly, anyway, and ala shorthand in that I won’t post links. My intention is to get well-acquainted with Bennett and Hacker’s respective volumes on the history and philosophy of neuroscience and their chief recommendation to trained neurologists, which is the book titled Attention by (if memory serves) philosopher Allen White. My introduction to nonphysicalist approaches in philosophy of science is adequate to appreciate your research interests as you explain your own program, already, at least as far as that means wanting to see that science and industry remain independently signifying terms referring to separate real objects in these slow to evolve fields. I feel that the exciting developments you mention for modelling the intentional and reflexive structures of living organisms and persons in terms of natural world conditions for their autonomous functioning (or something like that, to learn and understand eventually), can then make a great deal more sense to me with these other books read. The plan to read Bennett and Hacker came first chronologically, but the vision of the overall project you refer to in psychology (etc.) seems probably as apt as any to me for helping us to establish a future cognitive neuroscience worth the name. We deserve the promising possibilities these researches are creating, and I want to understand what it takes to see the work through, for myself.

  • Very cool, Tim. My spirit of engagement in interjecting the analogy was impersonal, you understand, my indication of how I am keeping account of the drift to your scientific and clinical approaches. My motive had to do with Rick’s suggestion, however, in that it leads me to consider saying, Yessirree, metaphysics is very “impractical”–if you get my meaning. You just could never finish RCTs on the ineffable, and if that’s a happy go lucky suggestion for saying you’ve got to test and prompt verbal responses without unnecessary introduction of the scientific viewpoint, hooray. Finding out someone’s allergic to medication or goes unconscious at once from the minimum dose are consequences amenable to statistical analysis generally. Do I want to get high like this pill gets me tomorrow? is not a thought appropriately conceived about the drugs in questions.

  • Hi David – In heading toward your new post of May 2015, I wanted to start back here. I hadn’t commented the first time, largely because the importance to me of your experience with chronic pain and lasting impairment from bad surgery. Interestingly, by way of connection, I just initiated email sessions with Alex, one of the posters in the thread above, who works privately as a spiritual healer and counsellor. To fill him in on my case, it was necessary to discuss physical limitations of mine due to accidental injury, and to talk about the frequently appearing vacuum for efforts to communicate with physicians about troubles about which, however carefully acquainted you have become with their effects on you, the doctor has already stopped listening before you mention the question you specifically needed to ask. I was satisfied with my reaction to your amazing story the second time, and it impacted as strongly as before. My pain was never so enduring or so complex and irremediable as yours, but my further connection to your experience would involve drawing out the consequences of how hard it is to get listened to about pain, illness, or any serious health condition once you bear the label that mental health professionals stigmatize you with. You must have thought a lot about the culturally registered differences in attitude toward psychic and physical discomfort and incapacitation a lot. Wouldn’t you agree that the feeling of pain sets up the best framework for understanding how best to extend care in one of these modes while learning from how to consider doing it in the other?

  • Nick Forand – I am glad you put the emphasis where you thought it was important. The problem with any talk therapy just is the ease and convenience and the status and entitlements that await the psychologist happy enough to be an apparatchik for the standard psychitric run of services. People don’t miss the fact that the psychologists around here insist that you can’t make someone change, that they have to decide it, and that when they meet the psychologist inhospital the shift in the semantics of “force” has changed the nature of their freedom to choose anything for themselves. Rather their attention on and considerations of the contradiction is suppressed and their behaviors and dispositions changed according to all the ostensibly therapeutic options confronting them. I wish the data in these clinical settings was gathered as rigorously as for any naturalistic experiment in behavioral modification is when the intentions are to get something accomplished, as opposed to insisting that something did. For instance, researches who want to help sell gum will more carefully investigate responses and frame their objective measurement efforts more significantly in terms of common sense. Honesty pays where it has to, and with entitlements it needn’t count for much.

  • Oh, that. Be with people. My career just has been waiting for licensed professionals to get around to, think or see to, want or try to be there and let space for relection be there. In that regard I think that resorts to psychological determinism are exactly as fascinating once credentils take over, as insulin shock ever was, and that this tends to make such heavy-handed processes–I know you’ve never done that one–wholly unnecessary for preventing the drive toward wellbeing from getting beyond the routine forms. I appreciate your personal take and clarifications on your theoretic orientation.

  • Thanks for the reminder, John. You pay lots of attention to our issues. Likewise with the pressure to give up the tapes in one heave, just getting started with your therapist and then finding yourself redirected within the same group, when it shows that they knew the shifts were going to hapoen and skipped informing you, is some wrench in the gears.

  • Dr. Steingard, Blame me for glaring ambiguities unaddressed and other shortcomings in efforts to relate, that will probably lessen with proper attention to them over time. Also, don’t let your time get used up when it’s just that symbolic disconnection of mine. Thanks for letting me know what was most unclear. But what I meant was your determined emphasis on psychosocial factors, and whether it was an end/means problem solved by such studies of yours as in the work of Robert Whitaker, or whether you had often come to a stalemate because of nagging doubts about whatever potential psychological work had to do your clients a lot of good. Continuing with some restatement, I had thought of certain compatibilities between Szasz’s suggestions to survivors, outreachings he made for which he is sometimes lambasted as much as Nixon saying he’s not a crook, and your more familiar kinds of counsel. You seem to intend that anyone who identifies with having problems in living keep themselves from getting stuck in any one mode of self-perception. Not that you’ve said that in so many words and not that, in acknowledging the difficulties facing those of us with problems in living, you ever try to deliberately point away from existing opportunities to obtain the fairly standard run of services that still could help, depending–whereas with Szasz that was business as usual. It just is my feeling that you believe, like him, that aside from very extreme thresholds for psychic distress getting crossed, that people do have it in themselves to get unstuck from many of their problems in at least some, frequently much more than marginal aspects. Plus you seem to hint usually that with more and better realistic investments of their energies they can learn to make that freeing up of their energies happen more to their favor than expected. That’s good counsel read into lots of impressions of your intents and purposes as a helping professional, of course, only it’s a general doctrine of self-reliance that seems implicit in much of your advisement and words of caution to people who are hoping to take control of their case histories and get their lives back. In comparison along with the inherent contrasts, Szasz’s most noteworthy message was/is to “take more responsibility” and learn about the unique kinds of problems that you know yourself to have. The content of his message is as general as it could be, and so is still very helpful specifically because it is so non-ideological. But that’s not a world of difference between you. Similarly, seeing these Yale conference videos and having them supported by your recap of the precise researches most directly connected to how you settled into your stride in your last few years, should answer to the same conditions of need that concerned Dr. Szasz, in some cases better and in many worse than in his day, where services on offer are concerned. I presume your underlying message by way of implication still remains that there are good reasons for believing in the recovery of your self-efficacy, and it is important to believe in this ability and to exercise it as well as you can. Thanks for your kind attention, and kudos on parsing to the degree possible my late in the day blather from before.
    Have a nice day–

  • What to do about those kids? How to get the parents attuning to them? Deep thought needed for an endless demand, and none of the processes which the allied mental healthcare industries reinforce for the protection of their own mutual entitlements to the receipts from involuntary treatment have the considerations of the youngest within their scope. Instead of reform in psychiatry, we need its abolishment, so that the only attentions placed on the development of psychological and moral incapacitation are not those brought in long after the fact.

  • P. S., Monica, Learning Ellen Langer’s particular language in the audio link you have on http://www.beyondmeds.com is nice for her take on more determinate refernce for language that instructs. I think that saying “when you’re there noticing things” is a great explication of “the now” and hadn’t meant to imply some one brand or method for tuning in in justing sifting through my awareness for adequate words. Folk psychology is thought much more apt, along the lines of how common sense ultimately deserves our mindful attention or respect, since many philosophers of psychology came to point out the elitism often motivating the anti-folk interpretations of our psychic life. In case you couldn’t think who got constantly so elitists, it was generally reductive materialists and those who take the scientific viewpoint to be superior by rights alone to any experientially founded one. I will try to begin recommending online shoppers to visit Amazon through your blog and look forward to more opportunities to catch up with the liberation politics of yours and Will’s.

  • Ok, this is real nonsense, mere scientism on parade again. To try to study human beings as puddles of independent and dependent variables is pure tomfoolery. This research design is exactly analogous to cutting off animal tales and manually flapping them around in the interest of seeing how the motion might connect with the furious little oscillations of the still observable stump. Besides not seeing how that would represent a noteworthy first effort for a twenty-five year review of studies in tailwagging mechanics, what would it have to do with the motion of life forms anyway? Similarly, noone is just some reactions that they modulate, and no doctor has to refer to calming down with some exercise “which you may find to help sometimes pretty well” by producing documentation beyond what experience proves. This is itself evidence of exercises in group narcissism in science. But the attention to brain shri kage from neuroleptics competes with it and seems less exciting to the press and public? I think Dr. Tim Carey’s interest in new models for studying persons and lower organisms in holistic environmental terms is going to afford us hints here on MIA about why researches like this appear obsolete at inception.

  • The anxiety that you notice to be lessened is the better anxiety to have. But the implication follows that to get at noticing less because of one bout of exercise, takes many bouts of non-exercise for comparison. Good to know. Yet, obviously, feeling better has to pay off in your social and work life wth better communication, relationships, and opportunities to blaze your own trail, or the therapeutic change won’t last. The results here are hard for me to make complete sense of because the fact is clear that you can become a nervous wreck despite great athleticism. So reading is required more than speculation. If mention isn’t made of shift in attention to physical activity providing someone with fresh chances to gain control over their emotions, put natural aggresiveness on their side in the equation, and use the distraction from the concern giving rise to the emotion in order to prove to yourself that your reactions aren’t signs of dangerous personlity dysfunctions–then I won’t know what they think they were up to.

  • Margaret – You realize the flipside, obviously, that finding your voice in hospitals can get you endangered and marked for life very quickly. In that regard, prison offers greater latitude of self-actalization, in my experience, over nonpenal mental wards–nonpenal, that is, in that you get no credit for doing time in them. What a joke. I wish famous Al would walk the walk about the reality of coercion, as bad or worse than ever these days, with the nanny state and parity laws and such bunk as paternalistic liberalism begets dragging us toward the mirage of some never seen golden age of humanism.

  • Barrab – I liked what you got here. The in between stages are still curious to me, so that how you ended up with the sharp focus is sort of a mystery to me. You and Ted had a similar first reaction, I thought, and one I agree is worth considering. But my initial reaction is that the project is not structured right and avoids the obvious in order to invoke the aura of objectivity. We have watched this phenomena develop for many decades, and such researchers as these are not suddenly going to isolate it now. As you said in addition, the phenomena has more than one natural form depending on motives of perhaps tired, bored, impatient youths. They can’t get anywhere separating the logical from the personal taste factors or either of those from the issue of motive. This is the usual big problem with point of view in psychology and its researches. Sartre said it can only explain the irrational, not the rational and true character of someone’s thought and ideas and way of being. Nietszche said we’re all too human, and that to me seems like enough psychology to get by on, in principle.

  • We have to pour it on about the trivialities like this studied in great earnestness while the very thought of re-education requirements for mental health practitioners getting determined chiefly on critical input from survivors remains suppressed. Could this sort of everyman interpretation serve any more foreordained conclusion than it does? Could it be any more general than it completely is? Was one whole step to studying this problem ever at risk of being taken?

  • Monica – I agree with you about Alex’s high quality off the cuff description–very normal for him. Also, your strict appraisal of the usual understanding of mindfulness remins me of another selling point of training yourself to become more mindful. To wit, besides the fact that just trying to learn how to be mindful benefits you noticeably, the things that might grate on your nerves more once you cool down and focus on the now tend to be the hang-ups and bang-ups that are ready to give way to new resiliency. You get to look at them over your shoulder for how much of a trap they were, without going through the agony of interpreting and analyzing them while you are unmindful, and so when you can’t think very practically about your emotions anyway.

  • Dr. Steingard, Is this the direction you have always wanted to go in? I would see different things to appreciate about your ongoing development of clinical perspectives in either case, although would feel assured the same about your judgment and responsible interest taken in your own reasons for taking the actual path you took. Heading into the article with your recommendation to watch the videos that feature in your musings likewise reassures me about their value for me, the time investment, the convenience of having your reflections to consider–as it were–in retrospect. I love your indefatiguable willingness to put emphasis on our needing to welcome and carefully attend to important competing views about ourselves as survivors, our problems and hopes as modern people, and the issue of our having the belief in ourselves that we should have.

  • Sorry for the grammar mess.
    Barbro Sandin’s pure loving concern’s keeping her focussed…
    the likelihood of making that injustic against her kind of person come to an end was nil (for me, in the American scene)…
    help survivors to recover their more immediate losses (instead of reminding them how dysfunctional they are and to keep patient)…

  • I should reread that classic little book sometime. In some ways, it fits on the same shelf as Eric Hoffer, who gets quoted in the types of current affiars commentary I like. (Know of him?) Anyway, your process for encountering the suffering and misery of others goes beyond mine, as it stands. I have to labor in general to adjust in fits and starts, but understand my goal is transcendence and also equanimity, you could say. You can’t help but achieve some measure of transcendence if you so much as try, it seems, but calm, cool, and collected, and ready to sacrifice for others takes the kind of understanding that leaves no different options in view. Not to imply single-mindedness and intense determination too much, rather like Barbro Sandin in Sweden having pure loving conern keep her focussed. One of the reasons careers in the helping professions never appealed to me was that the likelihood of making up for people who tried to hurt someone like her would never end. My attention on complementing the efforts of anyone like her in my own manner would have competed non-stop with trying to fight the powers that be so that I would not be such good hands-on as a carer anymore. I also wouldn’t have wanted to manage (administrate over) most of the people I saw going into the fields in my younger days. Now the most noticeable thing is the scant interest shown in helping survivors of their official and business as usual styles of interaction recover their immediate or losses or more profoundly degraded human potential.

  • Alex – Here, let me put a good word in for Dr. Tarantolo, in the manner of benefit of the doubt about innuendos and such. He can say if I’ve talked out of turn…of course. That little reflection he’s offered you sounds like a reflection of his credo for himself, as you probably noticed, and that makes it seem from where I sit, that intention is just–like for the drift of any meaningful encounter–letting you keep with your truth and bouncing the idea off you. Your story update (life narrative work, after all) that you completed here was great. I loved it, so don’t be done. More people need your visions and tales of apprenticeship in this world here on MIA than me–and I also wouldn’t be alone in missing your voice if it came to Ciao. As for our rowdiness, backbiting, definitely “dis-embodying our calm”, I’ve kept that in mind since Ted spoke up about it several weeks ago on one of Bonnie Burstow’s blogs. We’re doing OK, is my assessment, so then if you want to go into a bit more with sharing your more original ideas about constructive energy, and get a forum started in the Community designations, I”d be right there for that, too. Dialogue, criticism, emotional reaction–any focus you thought best for clarity and effectiveness to become more evident in our engagements and disputes here.

  • Hi Alex, That is the central issue with the message as it struck me, too. Plus, what a process resolving the hurtfulness and the psychic pain of encountering it. We need healing powers just to bear up in comprehending someone else’s getting demeaned, debased, abused, no matter that the final course they put their lives on was as good as Elgard’s was. Talk to you–

  • Carinna – Everyone has got to decide for themselves how to extend care, treatment, and respect others, and also has to know what attitude and responses seem most natural and appropriate for how others, in turn, treat them. Unfortunately, the institutional standards of care in mental health these days usually support the idea of meddling in the good work of clever, humane innovators and obstructing the efforts of anyone who wants broader accountability and greater respect for all. The freedom to choose just introduces too many variables for the rent-seeking users in charge of the operating principles of the current, scandalous paradigm. Meanwhile, many more wait their turn to earn reputations for intelligent participation in the efforts to provide “care for the mentally ill”, and they find themselves under recruitment from this same water-logged system. Your words are so touching and make the need for change feel so immediate! I hope you can see more signs of reason to believe in tomorrows with a human psychiatry, intead of this brutal machine of forced treatment that causes so much harm now.

  • Jim – I couldn’t have seen how to get more informed as effortlessly as you made it possible for us here, about this raging duplicity underpinning FDA official policy and procedures. Are academia and the press dead? I always wonder. In your opinion, are there any trade journals for following litigation and precedent that get the big picture on all this right, and does any one commentator or pundit, that is, some responsible intellectual, stand out and keep this vital newsworthy material in the news and discussed to the attention. Is it so convolutedly cordoned off by redtape and doublespeak that only lawyers can act to change it? Constant mention of the character of FDA commitments to the public health needs here seems not to matter enough yet, and somtimes just appears like the critic’s way of establishing their own reputation as a crusader for social justice. Your work for us is so clear and to the point. I wonder where else to turn for further explanation and ideas of how to respond. Thanks very much.

  • Hi Sandra – If I understand you right, I believe you should put your views on approaches to schizophrenia into your next post, or sometime soon. But I hope it is minus the speculations about how you see the significance of your ideas mattering for the mind-body problem. The best philosophers of mind are dissatisfied themselves still with the formulation of the problem from the outset. Few lay people are consistent materialists, dualists, etc., simply (emphasis on simply) because they reify/hypostasize a lot, as psychiatrists do in suggesting a detectable substance called schizophrenia. Suggesting interaction between mind (insubstantial but real) and brain (good to have, but not independently agential) by itself is not signalling classical dualism, however. I believe your feel for the parameters of getting “mental illness” understood and discussed are right, and that your concerns for Dr. T’s somewhat rambling mentions of his theoretical commitments are warranted, nonetheless. Both warranted and thoroughly to the point, actually–so I absolutely appreciate that you ask him to steer clear of suggesting hypostasizations of fictitious disease entities and determinable sources of communication between the spirit world and the material world. We would still need him to do that if he were a Plantingan dualist, because he seems to court arguments that omit recognition of the slippery slopes involved for any conjecture based on his statements at any given point. But he needs to focus on tightening up his descriptions instead of working out his metaphysics and his ontological commitments. Maybe spelling out the theoretical take on diagnosis and then explaining the indications for treatment modalities atheoretically can give his communications that natural feel that we all like next time.

  • Yes, agreed, and a little bit further. You more appropriately deal with semantics like you are saying than I was in my tinkerings with Boans’s straightforwardly apt remarks. You definitely have aroused my interest for the youtube link, too. Between reading Cat Night’s spontaneous take on the bad news as the living image for a time of need (my feel for her expressions) and finding my heart open, Boans speaking like the voice of practical reason, and you drawing most all of the represented trains of thought together in close proximity to Sera’s stated purposes, I could experience compassion and serenity and feel content before yesterday ended. I couldn’t contrive another thought but that was fine. Since I’ve relied on growing up in Ferguson and my many stays in Baltimore for getting the sense of the little that happened to come my way over the transom about these uprisings and conflagrations, so far, now looking intentionally at Reason, Slate, Mother Jones, National Review, and so on should pay off in catching me up. You handled the ins and outs of the language conception really well.

  • Amy – Congratulations yourself for all you got through and have started heading towards. Your responses were also very generous to all concerned. I doubt that anyone could actually complain that they felt left out or ignored, notwithstanding the reliable commenters in the thread. You have great perspicacity and incredible focus on communicating with respect to the central issue in what someone says to you.

  • MadOmOLandly – Right. They assume you have forever to adjust to whatever you suffer, and can’t bother to learn what it is. It is what the label says, and so you must somehow really feel glad to know them in the mental hosptial. That’s what I ran into and sound like what you endured, too. So now the “right” labels also make no sense to use, because the clinicians’ s knowing more than me is magnitudes less likely at this point. They were so pointless in their attentions to me, even the nicest ones, except for proving that they could have been helpful if they weren’t brainwashed about the whole approach to care. What mattered most was that with one particular hospitalization, many staff began to tell me they didn’t understand why I was being kept so long. Specifically different ones each began to act more strangely and accusatorily toward me, as though I were hiding something by acting so typically like we were equals in the game. The only ideal treatment that ever came my way happened to come from a lawyer who won the early release for me in the mental health court. Probably somehow another doctor who noticed that my case was much less exageratedly abnormal than my doctor pretended about me must have influenced the situation. Between my lawyer and whoever or whatever else rescued me, that was up there with the best psychological treatment for me since getting labelled. (Court happened without me, there, but the result was as good to wait on as to have in person, too.)

  • This theme of the value of clear perceptions is also what seemed uniquely powerful for believing in you were you to handle my case, and with my suffering endangering me like your clients’ is putting him at further risk, here. I actually look forward to rereading this very article because of the fresh and original viewpoint that it takes on the intervention you describe.

  • Sharna – I liked this variation of yours on introducing the approaches to interpreting the novel results of epigenetics. Nice that you thought you could get something positive done by blogging here, I think. My only other intentional introduction to biology proper is with Lewontin, and he really runs hot and cold with the objective value of his discussion. Your coverage of the facts was very even, and if you decide to revamp your presentation in talkshow style I hope that you post that here, too.

  • Ms. Mildon – Scary, wrong, painful. I am glad you are doing better for yourself and surprised that you could still think straight through all the time this ridicule and fraud happened in your life. The idea was to keep you disempowered and unsupported.

  • Sera – So the language convention for that distinction, that I’ve seen in analytical texts is Power, as opposed to power. Taking Boans’s message in that way, although it’s not intended, is really interesting, because it still adds up but shows a definite shift in its implications. The cops have the Power with them most ways in executing their reponsibilities, but the risk facing them involves their individual powers and their power in unity versus ours. That’s the stalemate to defuse by deconcretizing the oversimplistic perceptions. (Who was it who wrote on MIA about the cops or sheriffs hearing her out about protecting the violent distressed person? Think of the Power versus power dialectic as it operated on so many levels there, apparent enough to her for the complexity and the potential benefits of understanding it to take your breath away.) How different cops and groups of cops answer to Power, or how they neglect their responsibility to us in order to manipulate their ties to Power is something you can know not about without deciding lots more than which names to use for something. For social happenings, likewise, once you have them picked out and considered as basic subjects of investigation, the semantic considerations still needed to get clear about what you are examining reach to fantastic depths. The mainstream liberal press will play this semantics out helpfully to some degree, but not so much all told. But that is not their strong suit, anyway. If you had some particular sources to look to I think you should share them, or come back to follow-ups for us here. (One obvious alternative site is truthout. org, and that MIA person–who led me to keep up with those journalistic efforts somewhat, I actually know the name of: the leading proponent of ECT and strategic partner, if you will, with Robert Whitaker in keeping MIA important, David Healy. He cites truthout. org whenever he gets the chance, or I should say he use to often enough for me to have seen that this was a favorite website of his.) So what else seems right to you beyond truthout in non-academic journals, Sera–for the language and symbolism issues or the political ones? That would be good to know for keeping up with you.

    I think as far as the political angles, we can all usually guess better which types of source suits the purpose that interests us. Of course, reading varieties of viewpoints is important, all the time. However, my concern is just with the Freddie Gray issue particular to your thread and how it relates to your ongoing reaction to systemic oppression.

  • More power to everyone who has and takes good care of their cat, loves it back, and keeps it from being Cat that preys overmuch on the little wild things not ready for it, evolutionarily. In the natural historical view, cat’s in fact adopted us, but this makes them into an infestation when they are allowed to go feral, whether full- or part-time. Cats are very beautiful in the abstract, however–unlike other animals that adopted us, say rats and roaches, for instance. Too bad about the dander. On the off-chance my sister runs into me while running errands, she has to have pure non-feline moments of contact. But that is actually a fat chance, although better than that she’ll call. Meanwhile, it just takes some bad turn of fate, like getting locked out, big appetite, shivery rain– and Pussy wants me to death. Plenty to learn of from cats when you let them act to suit themselves, in watching how they organize their days.

  • B – Please allow me to offer this final word of resolution in the spirit of communicating with a positive attitude, and also since it got off-topic and is doubly sour to leave it dangling like a conflict of negation. As far as the idea of feminization that was coming from my reading, the reception of the author’s work over the years has changed dramatically for the better. My first encounter suggested to me that she had the right idea, and she included tons of primary source material. She knew that we were patriarchal, and that different kinds of feminization are desirable and that many kinds happen. What she hated about modernity in America is a lot of what you hate four decades down the road. You can have bold feminization, reactionary feminization, bewildered feminization, and the unfair feminization of men. You want to know how to have equality before the law and equal opporutnity to pursues happiness work out: you have to study how things happened. Talk to you later–

  • Alex – Like you know, it’s all good. You were just crossing over via your imagination like he does between his senses, or this lady in the news. The germane fact to keep explicit concerns the context: no one was hauling him away and injecting him. Dr. Hickey, you might have seen, takes offhandedly positive views of neuroscience proper: well, this kind of thing certainly proves the point that if you get picked up first by them rather than psychiatry you are at least worth some interest and can expect some solid breaks in your favor…. Pudding, carrot cake, things you won’t eat but I will, endless good stuff….

  • Sera – Please take into account that I owe a read to your earlier piece on Michael Brown, and my age doesn’t permit me to claim to have done anything but homework during the civil rights era. So, anyway, what Cat Night offers up, is very palatable and welcome to me as the relevant enhancement of the dialogue you opened the space for. My feeling about the struggle is that we have to notice lots of details if we build comparisons for injustice from psychiatric to the more widely social–I know you’d see what I mean, since it’s not disagreement in principle or with any of your illustrations of the purpose itself. My thought is just for how to advance any given conversation along those lines. We have to say, you know how you can’t trust that anyone has ever had anyone learn what they’re distressed about…? and then they…? And then we have to bridge the gap to the race issue or other obvious social injustice problem and do the same thing in terms of it. So the recognizable comparisons lead in the one sense to very general commonalities of cults of authorities for this or that, equally appalling disfranchisement of various groups, the rampant colonization and welfare-ish co-optation efforts churned out by the establishment, the opportunistic drivel of pundits, yadayada. Just endless bad faith rescue missions fully in step with the abandonment of the virtually forever insecure “targets”. It’s all ugly, but we have each other, most cops included, interested in realizing the better possibilities. Thomas Szasz once really bravely wrapped up some awful social analysis related to his profession, by saying in his own way, “We need to make the changes to our institutions that allow for new conversation about what the good life means.” Thank you for your carefully stated reflections, yet another time.

  • Tim – Despite the very concentrated focus on the dry run of facts, I can tell we are not dealing with a ghostwriter, here. Thanks a million for getting your theoretical points about rapport and narrative solutions and the honest weighing of apples and oranges in partnership in there, in the concluding paragraphs especially. After looking between the lines from the start, that was satisfying to come away with–the math is just revealing for different reasons than the reductionists want it to be: what’s new? Nice way of very competently retaining the human element.

  • The phenomenology of suffering in Being and Nothingness reacts to the universal feature of resiliency, if you want to think of it in those terms. Sartre says we want our suffering to take material form as it affects us, to end up incarnating as it were a Mask of Grief for ourselves and others. His idea of our reason for this is that we notice that however great our suffering, to the degree that there is something left of ourselves after some loss, most noticeably in the case of some terrible loss that we can’t imagine how we prove to have survived at all, in the present moment the suffering itself the disappoints. We want the evidence infinitely to correlate with the absolute character of the loss suffered, inexorably. Something hurts, but objectively you could say, more than just for ourselves subjectively. So needing to add to the initial trauma that started the cycle of self-harm satisfies the real logic of some true coping strategy. Thankfully lots of folks grasp the necessity of that first step of showing acceptance intuitively, too, just not proportionately enough far-sighted innovators to change hospital and support group culture. You can throw that away.

  • Sa – From what I gather about your understanding of your son’s needs and your (mutual, right?) ideas of causes, you should be able to take this as confirmation, strictly, for the positive outlook you can have for his recovery, as you’ve based your hope for that on learning all of what you can ideally do to make self-help worth it and to let life count naturally.

    http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/11821926/Neural_Sufficiency_Reductionism_and_Cognitive_Neuropsychiatry.pdf

    You could already have read something like this, since it fits in with your theories. It’s short and not very technical and would also serve in helping to pre-empt assumptions and detect the inconsistencies of medicalization arguments. If you haven’t read anything like this before, your level of awareness is all the more impressive, and this little gem of an explanation can still work as a way to make “normal” a much bigger category than it usually represents. It fits in with the “Understanding Psychosis” themes, and so on.

  • Tina –

    The chance to gauge the consistency of each survivor’s opposition to forced psychiatry is, as you must realize, best made available in connection to good understanding of the legal terms of the debate. We can’t put enough emphasis on the fact that no matter how strong the emotional appeal to resist psychiatric power or demand changes in the system, the parameters by which to judge how the impassioned calls for change can take effect are delimited and explained according to what the Law can sustain. It’s that simple and direct. And it’s therefore that helpful of people like yourself who can help us educate ourselves about the rules and culture of jurisprudence. Maybe we just need some good films to illustrate all the connections dramatically, so that the tensions of the different ways of going forward and bearing up against setbacks in our social justice fight within the legal arena seem less puzzling. Or just one-act plays.

  • B – I don’t know what you’re imagining I said to Duane. My understanding is simply grounded in study of Ann Douglas’s book. That suggests to me that you brought the issue with you and are misconceiving of your personal issue’s relation to what I said from memory of her thesis. How did all these things get wrong about conventionally understood behaviors typical for women and girls? I don’t know what you mean. Duane said that schools might work best for girls here at present, seemed so in a way, maybe true. He perceives what he does and isn’t arguing in hard and fast terms like some demagogue. My take was that he meant to remain open to new information so the very notion of saying this f-word is nothing for me to have an issue with, period. Does your issue start there with the first sighting of “feminization” or are you bothered only with my rejoinder independently of it’s focus on Duane’s experience and apparently long term considerations. I perceived openness and care on his part and am speaking to that by recalling the scholarly work linked above.

  • Stephen – I am glad for looking back here to reread your comment, so totally on message– Finally, with Sera and you at once in mind, the memory returns to me of one very valuable instrument for this discussion. Thomas Szasz wrote the highly accessible “The Meaning of Mind”, in which in fact he addresses the sorts of queries you are seeing as relevant. He develops the context for neuroscientific verdicts on voice-hearing and the contemporary interpretations of the neuroscience, talks about the possibilities of the experiencer’s understanding and the clinician’s comprehension of their report, and so on. Researching updated neuroscientific studies would be easy, too. Like Bonnie Burstow says about book activism for our PR efforts, the same holds true for anchoring debates among ourselves. I hope you get the book and enjoy it. The forums are right there as soon as two or more of us have any important reference fresh to our acquaintance, and “The Meaning of Mind” is impressive. Moreover, Dr. Szasz produced the work for this very set of contingencies at issue for raising awareness about “hearing voices”. How better to stay clear about the finer points of dialogue between the HV community and the lived experience community in general, like Sera says happens in Mass.?

  • Frank – Since you’re on the fence, you might want to google a thesis on this very regional issue of resiliency, dysfunction,and prognosis as they intersect in “theory” of certiable minds–the author is Karen Taylor Moore, and she raises your brand of questions, too. I can’t readily link it, since it’s saved to my desktop. Interested in your decisions about how to evaluate and maintain the focus on equal rights, as ordinarily as ever, though, whether or not the source turns out worth enough to use.

  • wileywitch – We think that was advanced stage syphillis that made him deranged, right? Reason this and reason that–anyway, depending on what you like looking into, the funnest book I lucked into, in which Nietzsche features among the supporting, is this one:

    http://www.amazon.com/Eros-Of-The-Impossible-Psychoanalysis/dp/0813327121

    It’s prettily laid out and serves as a nice bridge from Vienna to Moscow, and in conjunction with Joanna’s article, one from whatever you start out knowing to Hegel’s getting worked up as shrink, also.

  • More simply, I can’t see how I am working with this conception of myself anymore, that means objectifying my functioning as high or low. Looking at moods as high or low became too narrow, also, and too limiting. Cat moods (ala Desmond Morris) made more sense: alert, aggressive, agitated, defensive, and relaxed. Getting at why the evaluation wasn’t needed hadn’t crossed my mind until your article, and I suppose it would take very easy to do fudging to answer the questionairre that said “Rate your high/low functioning”. But the key thing is how does my routine, or anybody’s routine, go. Very much less jargon-y: Was that my best effort? How was it compared to my expected and hoped for day? Should I change the plan for tomorrow? What might have most helped to know that only my failures today taught me to understand? Thanks again, Leah. (It looks like the first time commenting I was affected by so-called flashbacks and practically unable to feel anything, noticed something wrong but not what. But everything is better now with my uninterrupted awareness of constant stress.)

    “Language matters.” Good empowering examples of that in your article including your perfect words in conclusion.

  • I know that the reponsibility is mine for taking the Lithium while I was compliant, but also simultaneously a non-believer in my label. Feeling afraid that unexplained events would repeat if I didn’t blunt my nervous system’s responsiveness. My best guess is that the use of Lithium brought me to much more severe post-traumatic stress and potential for flashbacks, depersonalized states, and derealisation. Why wouldn’t it? Since you have the very expereinces that you need in order to confront your demons…, but if you can’t process the emotional stimulation that would most naturally happen to you in tricky situations, then the effects are likely to snowball and catch up with you later.

  • P. S. – Dr. M. – But don’t forget, this bogpost is very much appreciated for coming from you. Just this rankles and hurts–How does the easily recognized and obviously needed standard approach get taken up out in my own community facilities and offices? Is that my new job, I wonder? And that’s not your fault that I never saw this common sense approach of yours put to work by anyone else. But I will have to start promoting it after getting more fully in command of every fact that bears on mental illness.

  • Yes, Dr. Moncrieff, Great, practical, needed…and never anything like it seen put to by me in over thirty years–fifteen compliant and hopeful, fifteen not compliant and much more sane. Both the creation of “my” file and the clincial efforts at “information sharing” by which it was created are pretty worthless things, and were paid for over decades with whatever I was worth plus real dollars.

  • Ms. Eden – In line with how you are paring down the issues and getting at the basic relevant discriminations, I wanted to mention the philosopher of science Ian Hacking. Not too long ago he took time out to critically assess the conception of multiple personality disorder and how it’s diagnosed, evaluated, treated, etc., devoting a book to this study called “Rewriting the Soul;”

    http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5673.html

    I haven’t read it, but elsewhere in related discussion he mentions just what you allude to, that as soon as anyone actually receives a diagnosis, the phenomena in question undergoes alteration. Likewise, whereas you make the categories, contexts, and definitions explicit and acknowledged as necessarily needing to be understood by all, for discussing the meaningfulness of any putative determination of the pathological versus the merely adverse event, the industry types I’ve met all want this stuff obscured and unquestioned by us. In regard to that typical process, Professor Hacking pointedly employs the term “transient mental illness” for the almost discussed types of problems that lives get hijacked for by the mainstream and its advocates. That’s yet another simple tweak to industry parlance that could counter trends in overdiagnosis, the pathologizing of everyday life and differences, and the creation of career mental patients, that the professionals won’t bother to implement since it once again implicates their resistance to talking things over above board with survivors just for a moment. “Acute, chronic, oh yeah–transient…” Thanks for sharing the important autobiographical revelations, from Raymond Ave. and everywhere else that counted.

  • As for the comparison at issue here, this is a great piece on taking Paxil–and meaning that like you’d have to take a punch.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/slates_10th_anniversary/2006/06/extroverted_like_me.html

    One thing is that you could advisably leave therapy for good reasons, if that happened and you hadn’t asked for it. I can’t see how we don’t need more work of this sort that Slate loved for everything the allied mental health industries relegates to RCTs. I. e., “So how does it effect the normal ones?” needs explained forthwith. If there were such body of discussions and trials, we could do as well with psych meds as we can with street drugs and drinks at the tavern, where someone in charge somewhere along the line is bound to cough up some facts about what you should look to expect. With such alternative sources, I wouldn’t have to listen to David Healy telling me his opinions about why to take a perspective on things I already have experience with or know to consider, before taking action myself (or when I need to warn someone else about mental health practices). Oh, by the way, did anyone realize that David Healy is very much in favor of ECT and even promotes it? In connection to my point about the Paxil story, that reminds me of what John Read and Richard Bentall say about RCTs for that possibly maleffective interventionas well.

    http://www.chrysm-associates.co.uk/images/ECTpaperReadBentall2010.pdf

  • Everybody can feel right about something scientifically determined–even when that result is a new question. But these days psychiatry causes the most behaviors and experiences to get called brains diseases compared to any other set of causes. No matter how deservedly the particular phenomena might sometimes be thought pathological, that is the true major factor in having the pathological misidentified or not identified, or the non-pathological labelled and stigmatized. What else is there to get at about this? Most adult persons have experienced psychosis, just not for very long, and mainly after staying up for way too long and working too hard (See Allan Hobson in “Out of its Mind”, although I think he’s not very critical at all of the fields in question….) Everyone has experienced some extremes of emotional distress or seen them before age six, and our exposure to such phenomena never stops during our lifetimes. Or look at the recent report published here on MIA–

    http://shop.bps.org.uk/understanding-psychosis-and-schizophrenia.html

    This was a help for suggesting the normalcy inherently retained by implication of equal humanity for anyone “getting way out there”. But whatever the message from studies like this one on a cat parasite, the wrong response is to believe in saying–See how carefully and devotedly psychiatrists work on these real and important problems of human suffering! Let’s help them out!

  • But for sure! Something proven to be bad for us that is real must imply that psychiatrists are somehow right all along…. Once on NPR, I heard about exposure to pesticides culminating sometimes years and years later in problems with sudden outbursts and fits of aggravation discordant with persons situations, presumably in people with no other apparent mental problems. But it’s the same endemic regressive social pattern with trying to learn anything much significant to “good psychiatry” as trying to learn from semi-press releases like this one that speaks on orthodox psychiatries’ behalf. PBS with its ADHD brainscan nonsense, NPR sucking up to psychiatrists’ who pride themselves on deceiving their patients with the chemical imbalance theory of depression–no end is in sight yet with PBS and this credulous tomfoolery of theirs. So how do we extract the relevance for ourselves as potential clients of the behaviorarl healthcare profession and not fee back into the authority trips that take precedent over reliable information and beneficial services from them? We first of all think that medical facts that relate to problems in living afford no excuses to the nonsense promoted about ADHD or any other label, and second of all give up hoping that the straight story can come from anyone accepted by reformers working as insiders in these “caring” endeavors.

  • Sera – Since the thread went in fifteen different directions–and how could it not?–I just reread your article to get more in touch with the topical elements. Now, the fact of the news bulletin content at the end can come much more quickly to the tip of my tongue, if anything hints at it in casual encounters around here. But the same thing stuck with me as before for your steady perorations (ruminations put in shipshape, maybe?) that you lead off with. Tens times better were these than the standard textbook samples of good persuasion and ways of effectively eliciting reader interest. My imagination therefore put me in the most contented place for “giving a fair hearing” to your version of how Hearing Voices can only turn out central to advancing our cause(s). Whoever was the first person who got to read your work back to you for your own final consideration has a very nice occupation in line for the future, definitely.

  • http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/history-psychiatry/speak-memory/

    Let’s try to get that link to show up right again. Congratulations to on your high schooler–sounds very gratifying. FYI, for really some time I have wanted the appropriate opening for bringing up my familiarity with the connections between child abuse and trauma and subsequent playing out of poor treatment options or the best hopes for good ones to become available. The article linked here is simply relevant as tangential, although it caused a stir about all those things, including with Gary Greenberg.

  • Hi there, S. E. – I looked at the link from your othe posting of it, and here’s the thing that you allude to (which academics never discussed but I have gotten one therapist to discuss sometimes)…Ever since Freud covered up the child abuse of his female patients, the helping professions have been handing over new techniques of deception and coercion that aid and abet child abusers, undeniably. The perpetrators, if they dislike their chances of silencing their victims forever by murdering them, can just keep working on them until they become psychologically impaired. Then no one listens to them, pretty much guaranteed. Or the professions go bananas about cult ritual slayings with no evidence at all, and lots celebrity involvement, and helps make things more chaotic by “helping people” create false memories. This eventually comes out in the wash, and again, if no one else dislikes the facts coming to light, psychiatrists still will…. Which is why this article got modified in its re-release–http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/history-psychiatry/speak-memory/

  • Dr. Scull, The facts are, that besides drugs and detention and declarations of incompetence that limit rights and end due process for mental patients of all kinds, and the constantly advertised convenience of the system as it is for those who like it this way–the main tool of the oppressive and stigmatizing forces that work against accessing “asylum” and approaching recovery just is the co-optation of language. If you get stuck with a problem in living, nothing substitutes for the help you can get from putting your understanding into words and refining your ideas of yourself, your specific challenges, and your situation in all its friendly and antagonistic aspects. But this is never encouraged like it could be, except maybe now with the HV efforts in some ways. Maybe academic critics will finally get the message that the benefit of free expression is squelched by the general run of practitioners they can learn of just by letting their fingers do the walking. But the immanence of this tarditive process is easy to detect at the local hospital nearest you. So the more language put to work on criticizing the institutional protocols, and the more interest shown by survivors for such extensive analyses as you cite and present, maybe the idea of the need for book activism Bonnie Burstow speaks of will catch on, but from the potential producer’s end of it, too. To me, it would help if more academics understood that language use, which is sure to represent the desired end of socialization efforts, pretty well represents the means to empowering people who get psychiatric labels like no else in society. The jargon, the myths, the prohibitions and facades thrown up around the undeniable significance of the patient’s articulation of their perspective…these are serious hold-ups that would cost next to nothing to revolutionize.

  • B – I checked out the offbeat comic strip, which I get as for the differences between the earnest and the entitled, pretty much. That’s how it’s comic relief, I take it. Beyond that, for your situation, my notion is that if it’s hopelessness that worries you, or if it’s the dubiousness of the stressful career, what you want besides conversation in the round, is to have someone or lots of things specifically coming your way that prompt your excursus about your work-life, but without tying you down to any one, certain take or to any further abstraction than what seems natural in light of the situation at hand. You want out of your rut and the effect of some feeling like you know you are past your duties in terms of it, sans frustration, san worry, sans doubt. You want out of your assigned role and fully into your chosen one, mentally. That’s what I would want to know from you to be able to say anything intelligent about science as you know it: to wit, Where do you go in basic research to ground your professional concerns, that would count to you if there were endless hope on the horizon? You seem like the optimistic type, in that you’d like to behave optimistically, and seem intent on finding reasons for believing imminent global disaster is hard enough to miss that we can get it attended to, and then all have that optimism that is working for us make sense. No problem in motivating yourself to believe that risks are worth it like that–not that I can see. For myself, pessimism works just fine and doubt is a worthy enterprise, although it can get foolish very suddenly, if you know what I mean. So you have your basic feel of the problem expressed here, but I wouldn’t know how to offer meaningful feedback or act in the proverbial manner of the sounding board. That seems the sort of thing that might answer to pass beyond the logical conclusion that you graphically have stated: Doom. Well, David Quammen thinks we’ll make it, but also got himself very gloomy understanding what our priorities are, again. We want no lasting dilemmae about our material security in the foreseeable future and no forced surrender of our favorite ways of killing time with shop-talk and complaints about our petty grievances–for instance. W e want this very much more than we want pristine wilderness and unambiguous declarations of our egocentric aims made public. As far as my own aims, I just took Dr. Berezins’ recommendation for the NYT article on the connectome project, later will perhaps survive something like this
    http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/stone83.pdf

    So, if you want to push the idea of any reading or empirical discoveries, please go ahead anytime… Good luck.

  • B – OK, I’ll get right on it. Meaning, I’ll get informed best you can tell me how and try to apply the understanding so that it relates in parallel to how survivor concerns intersect with the ones you mention. The intellectual history and, concomitantly, the current academic phantasm of “competitive effort” among our tenured elites are my chief focus, but not my main pursuit in terms of time devoted and conversations had…. I care plenty about what you’re seeing and saying about it, at any rate, and although heading over the hill (in terms of readiness for tackling your line of work), promise to look harder at the perspective you evince as the right critical one, and to do so from now on. I hope you keep taking heart, as you seem right for the fight to me, and very important for ours, too. What would you say are your main theses, or if a better qualifying angle, your usual pathways for acquiring the information and framework for digesting the ins and outs of this bureaucratized and globular decrepitude your “field” now faces? You’ve sparked my honest interest about the topic, according to your speedy rundown. Thank you–

  • B – Have you gotten involved in criticism at the level of the philosophical debate at all? Namely, “the Neuron Doctrine” by Gold and Stoljar, not too very old, published in Behavior and Brain Science? Most of the false understanding of neuroscience you are meaning to indicate occurs internal to the field, right? In the responses to the taking to task of the Churchlands et al., by that article, those who want the neurosciences to do what you say they can’t and/or appear imminently equipped to do so are insiders to a large degree, and so that certainly seems the place to put your emphasis–at least, for us who know only what we get to hear. What difference will it make to the field except for the insiders getting put to their paces, after all….

  • B – Yeah, I like this work-up of yours on reductionism and its limitations…, and there’s something nerve cell-y in figuring what you said, too, so what are the researchers waiting for, but better human science? And, then, why don’t they create some? They don’t see the basics very well of what’s not right and what’s never going to be…. Their role functions and they fit in enough.

  • Hi CatNight – I ‘ve got an idea for you here. Remember the word “posers”? In the land of compassionate intentions and good deeds, the NAMI types look at all costs to include posers, whether or not they are like that themselves, in ordr to help them get their own way from all available authorities and keep their “sick” loved one (sicko, obviously to the honest person) isolated from empowering connections, to look “serious” to their neighbors, “modern” to their local officials and judges, and “benevolent” to their reverends, and so on.

  • Someone Else – Yes, exactly on that subject matter. Here’s the link from about a week ago–
    https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/04/not-easy-clean/

    I think I knew about where you were with your main track of investigation, your beliefs and ideas, and the clarification is also good to have from you. When you take it on–psychiatric oppression–as the impossible to look away from because of the social injustice and the public letting the wool get pulled over its eyes, your ruminations become most compelling for me. I’m glad you “don’t know from depression”, too, and neither is that my big bother, thankfully. However, I am afraid that you probably have lots more energy than me. My better talent is following other people’s communications, and when putting my own together, some infrequently but happily appear like a flash of “my dormant self”, but most of the time it’s blank upstairs for me except for the outside input.
    My intention in complimenting you, at the first, included adding “my two cents” about what ‘s wrong in the wider context of the issue at hand, which is diagnosis of medical conditions with no supporting evidence taken into account about the person and why you (some doctor) is diagnosing your patient. At least, I think Dr. Beregin hopes to encounter such a reader (some Joel Hassman type of guy, for instance), and writes with them in mind as well as us survivors. You yourself were going into the heart of the needlessly alienating aspects of the multiple processes that diagnosing sets in action, beginning from the talking point of the standard omission from consideration of the harm that psych drugs do. My point in referring to Dr. Carey (Australian psychologist) was to indicate how unlikely it is that anything like one unique disorder is ever getting identified and studied and understood for therapeutic purposes in the medical model system of things. So, that was intended by me as backing you up, if you felt interested. But the article Dr. Carey cites is immensely technical, and it’s his excerpt from it that counted to me, and this might have been in the thread as well…not terribly long, though. In addition, you may see the relevance of all that which I see for myself to the issues we two have very close views on, strictly speaking, by looking at something like this Austrian phenomenology professor’s article on becoming hopeless. Page down to the Papers section–
    https://univie.academia.edu/MatthewRatcliffe

    While at it, I might as well link something besides that I just linked again, too, which relates very nicely to the whole thought process involving labelling, mislabelling, self-labelling, and choosing to understand yourself through better insights. Fiachra first put this up, and it is nice–
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/the-great-illusion-1.662763

    Maybe it’s time for me to read all of his online work, too. Have a nice day, S. E.

  • Taking your look at the overdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and diagnosis problem in this direction, Someone Else, gets all of my attention on what you’re saying, too. Did you see the latest Dr. Tim Carey blogpost? He cites an article in which researchers found over a thousand unique profiles within about three thousand cases just for major depression. Meanwhile, “our” recommended resource Dr. Nardo rests comfortably with the understanding that psychiatrists get this diagnosis right 40% of the time. Which is it do you think? Is there something getting diagnosed or someone upset and down on life?

  • Tina – Your selection of Slobogin in your 2015 continuation of this topic presents the greatly needed study in contrasts that illuminates the differences you and Bonnie Burstow are talking over above–that is, I see to look for that there, now. I think that his proposal makes the ideal pivot for moving between how to aim for one or the other route to change. For one thing, because he makes his case so plausibly by ordinary standards of social acceptability for “diminished mental capacity”, saying that we aren’t discriminating by considering persons as subject to compulsive derangements, however much their capacity is diminished being the expert’s call. A mental patient is a mental patient, a real qualitative difference. He was and he is, or … she wasn’t but should’ve been. For another thing, he asserts his premises on the matter as though they were reasoned conclusions, and still makes himself sound forthright. So he does knows something about what he doesn’t know that he could learn in order to do better jurisprudential theorizing…. Just offhandedly considering, and my perceptions may not be correct. But what is true and known is that I could only feel like reading such material as the Slobogin article given the framework provided by your work and attention to the matter. In addition, how very nice and easy to believe that the psychiatrization issue can inform the native justice debate on more general points of legal interpretation, whether in reciprocity or not.

  • Mickey Weinberg – I love how you put this. Probably should print it out. Wish the point could stand as moot. But unfortunately just trying to support even some neutral (and hypothetically efficacious) “P”-sychiatry rubs me the wrong way. To such a degree that it’s not worth asking anyone trying to make the word itself Anathema Incarnate to cut that out. Pretty obviously to me, the poetics of it all are going to provide as much of a revelation in the historical record as anything else that will. The matter of record being what it is. That showing the absolute malignance of this pseudo-medical institution and of the unconditional denial of its negligence from the vast majority of its more vocal practitioners, thus far.

  • Ted – Most definitely, on the ostensive action-event-organizing blog you would put this epic coverage of chemical imbalance marketing fraud under a subheading. No matter how you look at it, the interest among the people who follow the issue stays lively enough to suggest that the movement should investigate prospects for exploiting the facts of it in regard to the failed paradigm supported by mainstream psychiatry. This patch of criticism keeps all that as publicly available as the medium allows, right? But I don’t myself know how to quantify that potential value to an antipsychiatry movement, and haven’t got the skill set to pronounce on it the way that Bonnie Burstow could, either.

  • Rob Wipond –

    Having reread the recently re-posted Leo and LaCasse article and Dr. Hickey’s current blogpost first, I have to say that your AP style here is very good journalistically. Straight through on track with the ideal of unbiased reporting. Scott Alexander has the problem facing many geniuses, that of mistaking the unhelpful facts as mere opinions.

  • Dr. Berezin – What works wonders for me is that you characterize the imminent despoiling of the new “responsive” growth environment of the emerging consciousness as inevitably imbued with threats of “emotional deprivation and abuse” that are guaranteed to be realized. But, of course, just like with evolutionary retentions of character traits, we only fail to see this chain reaction extending into the distant beginnings of civilization if we wilfully disregard what exists right in front of us wherever we look. We plainly and simply know that we are creating the impress of psychosocial dysfunctions over and over again. Meanwhile, the biological model invites all manner of looking away from the effective causes in the transmission of emotional suffering. For any attempt at all to regard the mainstream messages of behavioral healthcare skeptically, the idea continually appears that the only answer the bio-psychiatrists have is to baptize some scientific jargon and envision a quick fix that supports laboratory work aimed at supplying the same. When will the media and the wider academic community come out of their trance state about this modern scientistic hoax?

  • Robert – Thanks for taking a moment with me out at the Empathic conference to remind me of your talk at Grand Rounds, and believe me–I was sorry to have missed it–not having allowed for the travel according to the noon hour set for that event. What a pain. I hope it went well and feel positive that it did, and very much want to hear you again and finally get your autograph in your books for my collection. The guys on my roof had finished up the perimeter floodlights around eleven, but they were still fanning the paint dry on the landing bullseye and saw no way really to get the chopper outside my door for the quick trip last Wednesday.

  • The attention on social problems in Native communities, the endemic quintupling of chronic disease issues per capita, are all important news for us all the time. When we finally see that we can’t get anywhere with our racial understanding and our “melting pot” history without recognizing and becoming broadly educated about them, and about how we are witnessing the lingering effects of actual genocidal intiatives against these peoples, by the colonizers and early American leaders, officials, and public–then we’ll be learning something, more actually. Then we can talk more responsibly about what we can do in regard to the psychosocial dimension of bad things that happen to afflict this ethnic group. Until then, it’s another crap shoot of institutionalization psychiatry and medicine proper, all left depending on one conscientious person at a time among pervasive extremes of suffering and isolation. I have seen one instance of encouraging investigation and intervention in an anthropological journal, but this too has to get regarded critically, since the attachment theories of Bowlby which were employed reflect Westernization attitudes, hence imply types of colonization, doubly, from the ethnic and professional dimensions of “rubber-stamp authority”.

    http://cfw.tufts.edu/files/rothbaum_articles/family%20systems,%20attachment%20and%20culture%20(family%20process,%202002).pdf

    So, when I say it was encouraging, I mean that like most of my “good” encounters with helping professionals–they didn’t hurt much…or get me too far, either.

  • hpost’ – Blaming yourself faces you with the logical conundrum of the impossibility of obtaining an objective view on your own subjective view, so it amounts to “guiltifying” and takes endless work that never reaches the desired conclusion. And just thinking “my brain” haunts your mood, I think. On the other hand, if you’re having definite problems in living and experiencing psychological extremes, like you are allowing to be the case sometimes, it’s perfectly natural to want to understand how neurology could help you. Probably the key is to get used to working with the examples in the text and not speculate about yourself too terribly much. If you work at helping yourself, you will get there, or get more aptly self-accepting and get somewhere better, and keep building on that. I like Slaying the Dragon’s idea of taking in fresh perspectives and adding breadth, also.

  • David – I suppose many people have and can get hold of this book. Online is this one which has the same types of info, more basically and not so pointedly argued as Levy’s….. But it is great improvement over what my elective in pscyh offered, which also was not the worst thing around for the time… the Keller plan…which went straight into experimental psych and stayed there lots. So this text by Boeree struck me for taking time for the whole of intellectual history and then going through the logical fallacies as means to the ends for psychology. http://www.ebooktrove.com/psychology/history_psychology_i.pdf

    I took a glance at your Ashland concern, the Mental Health and Recovery Board, and liked it a lot. Here’s what I think, though: the culture for behavioral healthcare is so screwed up and so devoted to and reliant on arrests and involuntary treatment, saying some people need qualitatively different attention from anything that psychology even understands, that most folks in it here in the U.S. don’t make out the demarcations that set groups like yours off from the standard fare. To me, it’s obvious that in my town the philosophy for community mental health equates with the Hammer Mechanic’s in the Sears Auto Department. The idea reflects in all the available services. So, while it appears polar opposite to what your group suggests, I believe they would think such differences all a wash amidst necessary trade-offs, and that the clinical work getting done is uncontestably close in approximation to what clients truly must need. It’s as though nothing at all is amiss except what Al Frances says…not enough serious attention to these most awful diseases… and We Need Bucks!

  • Cpuusage – Nice handle, btw. Listen, on your long conceptualizing spin-out about mental illness and reality–take it from someone who has plenty of them, but isn’t seeing his chips down too much at the moment, you shouldn’t let yourself get too much in over your head trying to fight the hydra of social injustices. Some time ago, Fiachra, who comments here, posted this very helpful link for this particular social injustice demon-head of ours, biopsychiatry. Just a short article by one of her countryman, that happens to speak more or less directly to what you are saying, if I get you right.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/the-great-illusion-1.662763

    Notice that Browne’s emphasis on the when and how of making the diagnostic cravings of psychiatry functionless has to do with going beyond “methodological individualism”–that is, locating the whole of what defines persons within they themselves, whereas the truth that he indicates understanding is that part of who you are exists actually in the hearts and minds of others who know and understand you for themselves, however variously or well. And notice also, his notion of the how and when of radical change having to do with creating as yet unrealized modes of asylum (or sanctuary…). In this take on him,then, his manner of emphasis also implies that the systematic, stigmatizing uses to which psychiatric labels are put in the meantime ARE spurious. At least, I don’t as yet see him backsliding and “re-packaging” psychiatry, and don’t believe he is excusing his present way of employing psyhciatric terminology to lead people into more freedom from coercion and aimlessness who have suffered because of becoming patients. He means to convert sufferers from believing in mental diseases to seeing themselves responsible and capable of significant growth and change. Elsewhere he says he learned uniquely from his clients some new independence of mind for himself. That seemed believable, too. I think you will like his friendly authoritative style of elucidation. Take it easy–

  • That’s taking it all the way, Alex. From getting shut out, shut in, and shat upon, beaten down and pushed to the margins, to not wanting to let anyone suffer the same, to walking off and striving ahead, to unfolding your own loving and fighting spirit and manning the ramparts. My latest acquisition for the arts includes the drift of prehistory (while we still have that subdiscipline), by recently deceased Australian philosopher Dennis (sp.?) Dutton. Of course, I always refer back to poetics, drama and verse if considering art, even pure music. My reading in Sartre studies just included an interview with him (beyond one just before that dealt his association with Cooper and Laing) on how his problem as a well self-trained pianist was to pass from the note to the sound, since he had got himself hooked on form, on tone, on the classiest purity of it. But he claimed to listen to everything. Rage Against the Machine? He might have missed that.

  • Dr. Carey– Where did I get Dr. Evans out of that, above? Hmmm. Anyway, you are really very fortunate to have known someone else good at anything having to do with labels and the disorders they breathe life into. Was Niall McLaren one of them?

  • Exactly right. Now for the truer joke: I don’t think my brain is on the receiving end of any efforts of mine to blame it, anyway. They just hit home in a thanks I needed that way or else they lead back to self-loathing. And it all depends. What helps might be that just referring to neuroplasticity leaves everything theoretical about brain health up in the air, for someone with no actual, identifiably medical condition. It’s simple to imagine and short to think of neuroplasticity as your governing ability to change, and you might actually blame your brain less in that way than by thinking of the disease model, just because you aren’t reifying anything substantially incriminating about yourself. It’s like snapshots of your goofy faces during changing expressions that normally no one sees. Look at my funny brain, but I am OK… and so on.

  • Leah – Thank you. I am sure you were considering the failure of third person objectivity to capture the intrinsic meaningfulness of the psychologically impaired person’s level of functioning in their own terms. For myself, taking myself as I am and imagining myself as worse than ever or just worse than now and like some earlier times, I can accept the idea that saying “incapacitated” described me, as it still does. But this is because I can reasonably envision increased capacitation, and never couldn’t refer to the chance to improve or regain some particular or general aptitude that had disappeared for me. Or appreciate myself differently and better. Which is part of functioning at my best, indeed. And all these matters of attitude and ability can be pointed to by someone else, fairly enough. But you would definitely have to ask me if I were myself content with the idea of how high or low my functioning was in terms of my own idea of that and how I was doing working at recovery and adjustment and evaluating my strengths and weaknesses on the way. The question would come to first person perspective even to decide the shades of difference between real and perceived levels of functioning.

    Having unusual experiences because of incapacitation or “unsuitability for work” makes for as much of a demand on yourself, as the constantly learning person you are, as having novel experiences that are unusual in the sense that the environmental and social conditions are all unfamiliar to you or unpredictably arranged to serve some purposes you are unprepared to adopt as yours. That is what people leave out of their understanding for us who have a different and trying time of it because the changes happened inside more than outside: that the whole person me is still there recognizing things that count, working at how to act, and how to get to be and have what I want to happen. First that impinges on me– the uniquely demanding situation involving me as less well-adjusted to stressful and uncertain things. Second comes the nearly automatically decided social exclusion and scapegoating. Last are these unhelpful descriptors–no longer just there as they were manufactured to be there. But now really standing as my obstacles. That is the game of mental healthcare: say the words we need to hear patient’s say and have the relationships that do the good we say patient’s need done for themselves–and you’re cured.

  • But a bit more then just the physio-/psycho- treatment implications follow, Steve. All of the question of cognizance and self-determination stems from the basic fact of how behavioral and linguistic criteria matter to the judgment of who is some “truly” mentally ill person. You might really like seeing how this program is defended, finally, and less equivocally than Szasz himself pursued it:

    http://www.hannapickard.com/responsibility-without-blame.html

  • Sera – You got this reply and General Powell both just right. What a mix-up he is letting himself live with. And the idea that it’s all romantic enough to go along with what works for whatever reason (in this case, false ones), that so many regular people would just want to join in the fun of letting the experts handle the meanings of their lives and the facts about them–how strange it is. I am glad once again that it is you telling this kind of story, because the AP wire version would be too surreal.

  • Alex – I know my time on this thread is getting too far along, but had to apologize or at least explain. In case you thought my completely academic recommendation was rather inconrguent with your preferences…that was me in the grip of my usual reaction to anyone American saying that Politics and Culture (which is where science and criticism both are for me), then I think I know who dampened their interests: us. Our media, our university system, our bureaucracies–all working full-time at it. Meanwhile, I was believing just the drumming sequence was exciting, and that maybe one lecturer stuck pretty closely to just the Buddhist self/no-self ideas. Anyway…it’s my way of coping that concerns me foremost. But fyi, what you said about no sabotaging yourself, and how you went at it is not hard for me to see as parallel to how Sartre came around to explain how to approach pure reflection, having explained how bogus guiltification is and how it dominates “impure reflection” on your mental states. That’s the compatibility that came to my attention for something natural and good in your program that generally corresponds to lots of integrated analysis about how to be authentic. Ciao–

  • Hi Sa – To me, it seems true enough that all talk of efficacy in behavioral healthcare that happens without mention of either the fact that psychiatry is not genuinely medically involved in treating diseases or that its entitlements to extra-judicial authority in placing persons under care involuntarily keep it from having to prove its worth to them, or both, is talk that misleads. The two basic operative points in what creates the difference between perceived and real value to psychiatrically determined interventions are just this spurious idea of diseases and this insistence on intractably dangerous and impossibly widespread incompetence that psychiatry strives to eradicate from society. These issues underpin every aspect of research into efficacy and appropriateness of interventions. So you’re right to worry, because all the happy talk of reform or potential improvements in outcomes reasonable enough to hope for–without changing the dynamics of the system, does mean that the most incapacitated persons will become increasingly cut off. They will have to rely on this one caregiver’s-bold-conscience-at-a-time reform strategy we see so much of here. The ordinary run of discussions that could take place about government support for entitlements to bill for involuntary patients, and widespread academic, corporate, and media support for the cult of authority based on diagnosing mental diseases, just are the two main forces behind the current paradigm. Why are they treated as peripheral issues to the shoddiness of current practices by all but several important authors, those like Dr. Hickey and Bonnie Burstow? Meanwhile, these two writers in particular always leave me reflecting on the obvious truth that we can in general always do better for themselves when we face the music than when we withdraw from accountability. What lengths people won’t go to in their replies to abolitionist arguments in order to keep their bubbles from bursting. But if they didn’t, what would they do with all their opinions about what’s best for people who don’t ask for their help, or who wouldn’t if they had some other kind of opportunity like real sanctuary?

  • But obviously, Dr. Carey, no problem in that light at all. For all I know, however, you can catch people out confusing themselves sometimes about that. Like for instance, I know it goes nowhere with Freudian theory telling me I come in psychic parts…. So maybe, as with mental illness not existing as such, it’s another winnow for the chaff, as you filter out all the little misnomers and contradictions in talking about problems in living. I wouldn’t question anything about how you handle cases, and think you are truly one of the handful of people who might have had animated (as opposed to somnambulant) responses to me and my problem with the inapplicable label and the disparate and hard to describe abnormal experiencing that indicated traumatization. What I notice in full view in this article are the particulars of how you state your views, for what that implies about the rigor to which you submit your analyses of what problems in living and psychological dysfunctionality are and can be, versus what they can’t. Your method of description and explanation may all be second nature for you, but we do see very little exact appreciation overall of what we are calling the whole range of personal problems that you help people learn to help themselves with. For myself, I would say it was and is obvious that there have to be some brain deficits and brain dsyfunctions to account for in my particular case, for instance, but they just are only as medically serious as lovesickness or terrible yearnings, and so on, and are amenable to achieving better adjustment, per se. Yet, in fact, in this country I was able to work with no one who could so much as intelligently bracket such an observation and carry on to learn something further about me that wasn’t fileable or filed already in pure medspeak. I don’t mean to overstate my appreciation of what you put into the short, basic articles you publish here. They just really could use some company when it comes to the objective attitude about drugs and civic responsibility and questions of mental competence. No matter that the focus is alternative, we see lots of hedging and denial of injustices done…. (Strictness is worth it.) Looking forward to seeing the material you linked. Thank you–

  • Interesting how with all the alarms he is sounding, the author unmistakably acknowledges the importance of the mission that inspires the tortures to which he takes exceptions…. His line about “unfortunately…” lots of such things as seeing what’s up with different potentially dangerous locales and people has to be done, he admits. The reality of the demand for security, whose reality is whose: I wish the right set of authors was known to me for that. Not someone who says “let’s have world peace”, but someone who takes the smoke and mirrors out of the game played about how to keep human rights abuses in plain view and standing as the first priority for any armed reactions, anywhere.

  • Well, on that note, Alex, let me suggest some international crossing of cultures–since the American Academy is the total snoozer of the century, all over again, of course. Google up Oxford Buddhism neuorscience. You’ll get a conference that tends to center on the right idiom and conception for understanding how these two Disciplines can approach the Self. You need to be good with accents, but the information is tres fab. The videos start with some Buddhist drumming, and the conference organizer has a book out called The Music of Life–just several years old, all of this, I vaguely recall. The point is, you see what goes wrong and what needs made right in the whole of neuroscience with correlations discerned in problem areas of Buddhist doctrines. Nothing leaves aside what attaches for all of us to the critical assessment of the research model for behavioral healthcare and disingenuous lack of attention to problems in living–so defined. But the practical application for that has to be found within the implicit understanding of what the lay community and various types of clients and patients have to gain from such a convocation of learned minds as this, emanating as it does from the multi-disciplinary approach at this high inside level of things. You have to be pretty content with heavy European accents, as I said, and up for the erudition; and need lots of efficiency from your browser and CPU, too. But it is the pure feed on tomorrow, today. Hope you think of something if you watch it. Best wishes.

  • John, I’m not trying to take you too far afield, but the open line to criticism of institutional medicine brings us here in the States into dialogue with civil libertarians, and their little rag is Reason magazine. Your point here regarding diversity, as you have canvassed it, hovers around the most important ideasfor cashing out the natural talent of the many different spirits in the incipient survivor movement. Which maybe is where you were coming from….

  • Hi Alex, Late follow-up. Down to the metal, I get you on the approach you have mastered. In point of fact, your explanations generally resonate with me. My language reflects certain cognitive deficits and what I do about them which is read very abstract literature, although the reason is that following someone else’s ideas is easier than generating sequences of my own for communicating later…. So, I really mean it that the scientific viewpoint is too much with us, the touchstone of common sense vital, and the philosophical level necessary for increasing understanding, with mysticism tending to its own needs, and that my knowledge of how to mediate between them is at novice level. I think that from what you have said so far, that our differences lie in the pleasant land of debating how best to determine the effective way to criticize views that are inconsistent or somehow “unconscious” of their problematic embrace of favorite biases. Beyond that, although you talk spiritually, the step out to the analytic discussion of the same facts is easy for me to make. So like with Dr. Tim Evans, I’d say you get the fact/value distinction meticulously understood in regard to mind and behavior and personhood, at least compared to most. Talk to you later.

  • Tim, I really think you killed it with righteous effect here, and too bad you haven’t got an English-speaking world syndicated self-help column. When you previously talked of the great difference between yourself and other therapists regarding letting the client assume control over the frequency of sessions, presumably in tying this to your view of the importance for your clients of the deepest sense of responsibility for themselves that they can know, I admit that it worried me that you had decided to invite a face off with the worst of bad enemies to have: your colleagues. No worry, now, though. Just one thing of a colloquial nature: I am sure you recognize it as provisional and shorthand to speak of “parts of selves”, since there is no obvious way, strictly speaking, that we could have parts of ourselves. It’s innocuous until it’s taken literally: the most apt “parts” would seem to be your past, present, and future incarnations, while the subpersonal “parts” are surely you through and through: giving you voices, hysteria, tics and jumpiness, and so on. The only reason for stipulating the fact, however, is that your language is very meticulous and not at all distracting in its incredible correctness. Thank you–

  • Hey Slaying, the line that set you off actually is directly stated in the same terms that Dr. Evans uses by the author of The Myth of Mental Illness himself. I think it might be in The Meaning of Mind that Szasz says when someone tries to accuse a person of mental illness, then that psychiatrist is onto nothing more than a problem equivalent to lovesickness or some such “malady”. Maybe it’s because Tim’s first language is Australian that he sticks so close to the words of Szasz in his paraphrase here…. (Or maybe he doesn’t know that Szasz makes the statement, and he just comes up with one lucky correspondence to the whole of the right idea that mental illness is a myth.) Anyway, I think he meant to show patience for people who want some Valium instead of Risperdal and can’t get any (like me), something to take the edge off, or something like a mood stabilizer if they fear going berzerk for their own good reasons (which used to be me). Tim doesn’t seem to intend tolerance for labelling and deceiving persons about the efficacy of meds, at least not as I understand his terms. The one thing he missed clarifiying here was something he all but said outright: that it’s once you take the drugs as prescribed that you begin to risk having some very real medical problem. That’s our mutual concern about this issue, right?

  • Ted – I’m not sure this will register with you about conflicts…but as an adult in hospitals, the phenomenon of conflict (between patients) always had the dimension that involved shared disempowerment, immediately. So while on the one hand some attitudes seemed to remain amenable to reconciliation because they saw the commonality, others were resistant to the point of vanquishing all subsequent kindnesses after any slight disagreement (“you are all crazy for not believing the doctors like me” often seemed the theme underlying the person isolating themselves “due to overt conflicts”). Out here it also seems that we shouldn’t catastrophize the headaches we make for each other, but should look to the mediating factors still more thoroughly to decided how capitulatory attitudes and ambiguous declarations of anti-psyhciatry are making communication difficult. Of course, since you emphasize this I’ll have gotten sensitive to it all myself now…. But who could remain unaware of it? At bottom, though, better validation here and with persistent supporters of our cause coming from all walks, more direct impact of compliments and positive suggestions than any professional situation afforded me, so far. More ideas, too. The encouragement I feel in seeing patient building of commitment and determination according to scholarship, keeps the inroads for better coming together in view, also, as any time we create touchstones in our basic research…likemindedness gets its footing: Szasz, Bourse, Foucault, and more quotable efforts, especially. Thanks for prompting the attention to spats and curses and whatnot…

  • madincanada – I really appreciated the your comment that elsewhere mentioned the basic facts of coming to terms with your children, and putting the arrest orders for treatment behind you. My mom had to go through, and gradually my sisters also now are, simliar tranformations of their atitudes about what was “best” for me. So, knowing you’ve thought this over just to a point and from various perspectives, I want to lend support to the common sense exception to the idea your friends have about being saved by ECT. It just is what was tried. Nothing like what should have been tried. What could have been tried. And what mattered to try besides brain shocks.

  • False. You are ignoring the valuable testimonial evidence, at the very least. When I stopped believing depression was like you say, I started reversing its effects on purpose. Beyond that, in full recovery, something might have happened to initiate intense and sudden relapse, but I could just review the facts and admit that although originating with an external event, it immediately becomes only how I am making myself feel, as with any other emotional state. Nothing like one level or variety or approximate degree of stress ever gets measured, either, in some instrumental and scientific manner. It’s quality words that describe depression, not numbers on a scale. The problem with theories of emotion we have and responsibility for your own that comes from behavioral healthcare seeming medical, involves logical inconsistency. Psychiatry errs here, for profit and extra-judicial authority, like in everything. Psychology joins in to take a load off and retain the benefit of associating with power. Someone is mincing their words to you….

  • Hi Alex – Appreciation, regards. Listen, something Bonnie probably has knowledge on how to work with from her point of view due to scholarship, more than me: Mysticism in all its variety is its own thing, and has certain validity and certain limitations as an exclusive perspective, udnerstanding of which you would definitely have the inside track on. Meanwhile, the scientific point of view–and much less the scientistic one (that no questions need asked of our viewpoints themselves from proving scientific theories true)–works out only to provide another alternative viewpoint, not the be all and end all readily championed…. I feel sure you can believe as much for good reasons, but have also seen the point demonstrated by rational, deductive argument. So Bonnie in mentioning this limitation to the value of common sense, has to have considered the evolutionary project of updating it, besides its accomodations of our mystical and scientific traditions, it has to respond to philosophy, which in turn we can really only approach after tiring ourselves out at the limits of common sense. But it’s a daunting mess for novices beginners, and no perfect jumping off place for anyone can be predetermined in any branch of philosophy, although consensus about the top four or five minds in history is fairly easy to achieve. I thought would pay to mention that Thomas Szasz held that his reading of Susan Langer’s Philosophy in a Brand New Key changed his life forever (along with two other books, one by the sociolgist G. H. Mead, perhaps on social games, and one by Ludwig von Mises, I believe, on freedom). The work of Susan Langer’s that I’ve looked over, and her development of it throughout her career, seems to invite the holistic perspective; takes evolution into account; employ ordinary language: and appears compatible to the feel of the inclusive approach to marked differences in worldviews. Just sharing the thought…

  • Hi Sarah – very nice balance showing for your theme. One fast word to you and John about crazy little diversionary things: you are forgetting Laura Huxley and her book You Are Not the Target. Real nice little book that takes you to the significance of giving yourself breaks from the mundane and expected by first laying out the ideas behind creative “exercises”. That’s different to experience than someone’s trying to make it seem like you have to go along with something childish…. Her last book on guided meditation called The Possible Human is also attractively thought out. Beyond that, I think all this that you’ve taken time to say stands for just what is missing in most therapeutic encounters, the humanity, the real openness and unbiased appreciation, and the needed rollback of social Darwinism in the mental healthcare paradigm the therapist measures her loyalties to. It’s as bad out there as indicated by your one-woman manifesto, and as far off as Ted C. reminds us it is. We are obligated to watch, wait, and struggle for future generations, no doubt about it.

  • Meanwhile, the parallel problems with the culture of labelling and prescribing must infuriate you as well… and everyone from social workers to judges to talk therapists contentedly rely on the compliance model, in the main. The need to disabuse all involved that they have so much as learned a thing about the drug interaction in the specific case before them, while taking their clients as “sick”, is the other road to getting scientific and more cautious. If caregivers have limited their inquiries to checklists and interviews, in terms of supposed symptoms and side effect notions that their checklists require, they have not yet seen anything but the generic version of human organism attached to insurance documents coming to see them. They have decided in anticipation of this event that this payee was only going to be able to babble. Because what people “have” are best called “symptoms”, and anyone wise to the fact tires of holding up their fingers to show the “supposed–“. Those who want counselling and psychoactive drugs have really to concern what we see are worries and fatigue and persistent dislikes. They have unmanageable doubts and discomfort about real conflicts they are facing. And in most cases, they contend with situations in which no one listens capably and fairly who might exercise their authority to clarify such unfortuitous situations if they did. Furthmore, typically, one manner of reacting to conflicts always predominates, with the rules applied to settling them getting enacted according to the standard assumption that their intents and purposes are self-explanatory, and that justice is therefore comprehensively regarded.

    The efficacy of drug solutions will remain undemonstrated if clients are thought of as enumerable substitutes for the trial subjects that were the real thing. Isn’t this effort by Gary Greenberg, one or your counterparts here, the essential type of complementary and needed analysis of the evidence and publication problems, and the theory and practical approach problems, that you see we have to obtain more of in order to achieve the fullest appreciation of human science applied in clinical settings?

    http://www.garygreenbergonline.com/media/manu_depression_harpers.pdf

    We needed Turner and the heat turned up in subsequent expose’ s, truly. Yet, isn’t the focus in Greenberg’s article, on the same issues of protections against fraud, from front to back? Isn’t cultural criticisim absolutely necessary for arriving at the right decisions about models for psychopharmacological science, and for establishing protections against fraud and abuse? Aren’t fraud and abuse the last things we can expect to hear about after allied mental health industry drug revolutions, and the first thing we get called to our attention before some painless “reforms” that leave the fundamentals of the traditional program firmly in place? Haven’t we got to rely on human sciences, history, and sociocultural criticism for detailing the scope and the significance of the problem of missing and unreliable consumer protections in behavioral healthcare, and the problem of their being overlooked again and again? Will the human science ever study themselves, routinely? I would love to see the connections formulated in a future piece that reigned in the generalities of the statistical criticisms, and that then went on to illuminate the unimaginably bureaucratic purposes behind the unmasterful intentions to do any of this behavioral science scientifically at all, so far, in this long ruinous first fifteen years of the century.

    Thanks, Randy

  • Hi Joanna – Thanks for your valuable reflections. I was thinking how difficult in can be to tackle novel presentations when what you hope is to comment in straightforward manner while achieving good perspective on the context as it develops in the thread, your spontaneous responses to the article, etc., etc. You want to lay out your side because it’s the ground floor of experience talking. You want the whole of the benefit of the vicarious lessons learned, too, from whoever had some similar struggles. You want things to appeal about your reactions and sometimes to repel as much as you got hints of something irksome in the chain of cause and effect that got you survivor status. I know this is second nature stuff for you. What maybe Michael F. went about blithely was trying to omit the sorts of clarifications of historicity and its effects on our perceptions that you commonly make. For instance, he might have mentioned once that Athenian culture relied so strongly on shame, that it was a much more public culture than ours, where you worked off the negative image you might have impressed people with right away. Something about how it meant to seem credible in regard to defending yourself as worthy to your name. Beyond what we reasonably consider the need in our societies. Likewise, he would have more carefully played to his audience of “white-collars” if he hadn’t credited them for so much perspective, and now, I’m thinking of both his entertaining pieces. These geniuses connected with Szasz’s legacy on the one hand and his perceived infamy on the other, are not such patient and scholastically determined folks. I mean, about the alternative crew, none of them are offering to restructure all the bs diagnoses, take your Medicare and review the medical records that explain the nonsense you went through, offer to undo or redress the injuries to your body and name… like they very well could here with an ad in the back of Rolling Stone. “Our side” in care is still very regularly their own side in the game of who legitimizes what that already can without beating their head against the wall. So, Dr. Fontaine didn’t push his authority into the commanding role like he might have with the Plautus piece, in particular. He should have told the gold boys and gals that he could only offer them hints at the right means of cross-cultural interpretation, that it would take thousands of closely spaced pages to get any given remark that we want seen in parallel with our historical situation, adequately understood for the proposition of defining abnormality or psychiatric distress. Despite such common perceptions that the academic and professionals working out the terms of clinical encounters are in charge of discourse for all the right reasons, the survivor testimonials and insights about non-compliant modes of recovery offer the best self-help and most helpful range of perspectives on shopping around for care and information that might save your life, because you see the experts weren’t meant to, apparently. Between “the highly trained” and the ordinary needy/deceived/deranged client, the client is the more advantageous ally, as long as they have decided on great scepticism about doctor’s orders and not believing that nothing much happened when they were detained while innocent of causing or intending reckless destruction, violence, or acting with any malicious intents. I think that good, articulate, witty Dr. Fontaine forgot what kind of bad jokes your helping professions are here, stateside, as friends and allies to anyone most practical about their needs in extreme circumstances. Most even loosely articulate persons I met in hospitals as fellow patients were just in extended states of inability of coping with these mad mind-readers who wouldn’t ask them a thing that they could tell them if it meant not translating it into checklists of the symptoms that got approved.

  • Bonnie, Ted seems to be striking when the iron is hot by letting us respond to this overview of your investigations of how to effect change. I also think that individual protests can happen independently of the advanced knowledge that is needed for evaluating the goal best to share and the outcomes of and downsides of planned projects of group action. But I mean advanced knowledge of the intricacies particular to getting the facts straight. The facts that support hypotheses like those you wish to keep in focus are indispensable in themselves. The most difficult point to appreciate for most people who decide they can or have or will or should rescue themselves from psychiatry, and help see that others can, is its appeal to all conventional approaches to systematic maintenance of authority and power, so that accountable is the detachable option at the top, and according to what the ultimate authority acting at a given time may react to as “right or wrong”. I think there is right and wrong, but psychiatry and psychology and neurology acting in concert will intend to dictate both the final conclusions about that and the conventional wisdom and legal definitions for declaring it officially true, as they do for “choices”, “sanity”, and “intentions” already. We can make monkeys out of psychiatrists for voting diseases into existence. But no vote has to happen for them to keep allies throughout government, academia, and the corporate world–just to keep the means to exclude and disempower intact. History needs retold, undoubtedly.

  • Bonnie Schell – I notice that you cite the Bazelon Center in your discussion of interpretive context for the benefit of mental health consumers. At least, the mention of the Bazelon Center puts me in mind of that old-fashioned language because their specific influences, ala paternalistic intentions, and their consistent push to over-ride the high civil rights standard approachable under the McNaughton rule years ago, generated the consequences in many aspects that led to the ripest conditions for the very abuses we see in psychiatry today. The problems stemming from lack of accountability and low quality of care given resources available, deliberate inattention to Big Pharma kickbacks, as well as concomitant misleading propaganda about it, are all sociopolitical and socioeconomic effects that depended on the types of extrajudicial authority that Bazelon types of paternalistic liberal ideologues always understood as predictable. Once seeking to enhance the extrajudicial authority of mental health authorities, forever doing it, the self-styled liberal establishment stands. Not only pschiatrist’s ability to detain without explanation, but their state-sanctioned demagoguery under oath as forensic psychopathologists, has never not been part of the Bazelon Center’s and mainstream Treatment Advocacy and Patient Advocacy (pressure) groups’ agenda against psychiatric patients’ and survivors’ empowerment. As for the supposed disvalue to us of persisting to fight the anti-responsiblity partisans favoring the insanity defense, the functional value of such forensic testimony in manipulation of trials and legal enforcement of mandated treatment protocols, this was roundly and patently dismissed as “a public service” for its lacking veracity as expert testimony, or even commitment to it, by none other than Michel Foucault himself. The McNaugthon rule was both more stern about formal protections of due process for defendants and more cordial to actual litigation procedures in many ways in comparison to the insidiously paternalistic values proscribed, and exploited grandly, by psychiatrists, enjoying their developing inroads into government bureaucratic agencies, such as they could enjoy them so conveniently under the intended directions of the Durham rule which came to replace McNaughton. Bazelon lobbied hard for against McNaughton, as I’m sure you can find out. In language and intent, meanwhile, the Durham rule that Bazelon escorted toward official and widely publicized acceptance, and that Bazelon intentionally helped to install, sets the direction by which the Murphy bill now fits into place in our legal adjudicatory framework of laws–laws at work mainly for the self-serving mental health establishment, and hardly a comfort to survivors and patients condemned to indefinite “stays” in involuntary “care” facilities. Certainly mindful of the elitist and entitlement driven atittudes that would be further encouraged in their exploitation of psychiatric patients’ freedoms and individual needs, our Bazelon Center types of “protectors of patients” must have found it just as plain to see is the convenience of their efforts, inlcuding the Durham rule, to those KOL leaders in the behavioral healthcare fields who wished us to become eventually fully socialistic in providing mental health solutions according to medico-therapeutic statism in the full sense of the word. But the liberal establishment itself wouldn’t hypocritically look the other way on such far flung manipulations of government expansionism in order to benefit the more affluent and empowered, not being the same meticulously structured bureaucratically minded regulating network of American institutions fervently “defending” the poor and downtrodden, would they? But, yes, they and their nested mental health insiders obviously would. See Cato Institute’s policy report here:

    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa590.pdf

    Good intentions aside, then, and rights given priority from the first, how should we take it that getting all significant legal changes understood to the nth in terms of good intentions–and notably, all of a sudden, according to the implicit distraction for the apparent Right/Left partisan divide–how and what should we believe about this focus on good intentions in more detailed historical relief? With the implication adumbrated by your discussion setting into question, as it does, the Murphy bill…as well-meant but sadly misguided, what should we seek to learn about the intentions of “our side”? Murphy’s bill really is the historically logical successor to the Durham rule hailed as most compassionate and “realistic” for constraining the voices of the parity we most truly need, and as usual this brave, bold change that wasn’t that got hailed by so-called progressives and leading liberals intending to keep up the drumbeat for making psychiatry great. Does this mean for your discussion of good intentions in your article that there is a silver lining here somehow, on the visible horizon of this step backwards that the Murphy bill represents for survivors–one that will give us means to account for the negative effects of the previous historical move away from McNaughton? Or can a return to that rule’s precepts of legal over psychiatric authority, in the vein of some constructive legal revisions, bring a competing proposal to life for beginning work on legislation to supercede the Murphy bill? Will it just be back to the supercilious policy position of the establishment and Bazelon types of men in black frocks and white lab coats and, in turn, the ladies among them in theirs, and all those followers emulating and adoring their so very thought-out thoughtful ways? But aren’t these the inauthentic attitudes and unwise behaviors that got us the wondrous new scheme to enforce ineffective and disabling treatments that we so dislike? Orwill it some day no more funny stuff based on labels? Will it ever be with the pretense of opposing camps where infighting Left of center displaces meaningful arguments center stage, ad infinitum? Is any peer rights group besides CHRUSP the apt choice for leadership in the legal arena, in this general area? They seem most well informed and motivated for deciding terms and conditions that put good intentions into trustworthy operational form to me.

  • Robert Nikkel – When nothing much can changed because of entrenched interests and the bad models of treatment and evaluation prevailing, I believe that the budget overhaul sets the best of what to aim at and shore up into focus, too. But I’m sorry to find that just my experiences managing small business concerns was enough for us to think a like, since you got see the doors open in places that I had to pay to stay locked up. Meanwhile none of the treatment was appropriate, or is it better to say it was all misguide or what should I say after starting to get somewhere helping myself? Again, you at least got some say in how all the doctors and their little helpers you administrated for did their jobs, somewhat. I had to learn everything they were supposed to know to tell to do and the whole of everything the told me to do that was wrong just get them to let me get other stupid answers to any questions that were also still things for me to research by myself later on. Good luck getting any of these people to so much as question their images of themselves on your watch. I notice they never have customer service windows at their hospitals for returns or refunds on mental services that weren’t ever going to be worth a damn.
    Predictably, as the usual way staff operate in those environments readily shows. Please stick a pin into these blind faith healers faith in what they sell.

  • Ok, so you can trust that I know it isn’t casework online with you, Noel, hopefully…. A little while ago, my phone conversation with a longtime acquaintance heart gave me the chance to call forth the emotions particular to the healing experiences themselves noted above. I’m glad life is how it is so that something as dry sounding as adjustment has real empirical consequences on your senses and beliefs about yourself all at once. That when it happens in stages and steps full of emotional continuities and tensions, you can have clear intuitions of the significance of narrative solutions as elements for tuning to what you got right for yourself in the felt shifts sensed in the first dispersion of mechanical feeling patterns of stress, now physical, now a heartache or passing thought. So just the facts: more cohesiv approach to getting past the inclination (you’d say, subpersonal inclination, or the automatic response) to tense up for a swimming session. The phobia wasn’t the problem, susceptibility to panic in potential drowning situations was, and I get the feeling you will already know what I say. That in fact the support for this proneness to anticipate the onset of a panic attack, although no other one ever happened in terms of any kind of aquatic settings, was itself supported by anticipatory feelings. I could examine now the underlying apprehension of the vertigo that sets in when you feel horror, and tempts you to cast yourself into the open jaws of whatever threat. I had an underlying fear that panicking meant loss of good judgment, so-called losing your mind. I thought my responsible attitude could easily fail or my rational competence vanish and make saving myself from drowning seem like a kind of creatural act that would make me feel very strangely transmogrified. Kids, they get the funniest ideas stuck in their heads. The other thing about repression not suiting what explains keeping your conscious awareness off of like getting respected so as to only adjust to how you were or are not, that was right, true enough, and I feel like a new person compared to a couple of weeks ago. The very activity of thinking of someting unpleasant constantly in order not to think of it effectively at all, had represented my most notable problem in living. Changing anything going on, and in particular changing rooms, clothes, leaving the house made me feel so much grief for how many new things I would have to keep straight about and used to. So functioning in that sense of getting freed has some understandable shape and recognizable good sense of drama or engagement to it now. I really aporeciated your work and ideas, seen here. And so far my sense of self and Other, feelings and significance of things past or actions possible, all seem most compatible with your critical presentation of issues concerning efforts directed at restoring wellbeing and naming the things you are helping with in the right way for the person getting the fixed troubles clearly before themselves and out of the way, finally. It might have depended on “Focusing” training, but that wasn’t that wasn’t an adequately directive approach for explaining how many things fell in to place. Which as always makes me wonder why Gene Gendlin didn’t want to go all out helping people with worse problems. But after being two peas in apod with Carl Rogers who never had a stern word for psychiatry in all its hideous incarnations, …at least that’s popularly heard of. From that era, there’s just Karl Menninger’s mea culpa to Thomas Szasz that’s legend. So Gendlin just gives his businessy trainings and seminars, and all the while proudly drops hints that he knows all of what is true and would prove more right in all of psychiatry. But he leaves the potential customers hanging, and leads his crops of therapists to employ explanations relative to labels and not their humanity alike with others in need. Why so coy? I give up.
    Noel, Thanks very much for your time and thoughtful resignation on my behalf in your earlier reply. You believe right that there’s nothing doing but what’s entrenched beyond a few inroads in theory and methods too little applied. Nothings stopping just getting it all on track except greed and sloth and resistance either.

  • Yes, very many thanks, John. Resiliency is like for dispositions to return to happy intimacies, productive encounters? Plus the tendency to form attitudes to open to the opportunities? And for not taking one person’s affecting you negatively to govern your attitude and ideas? So like a freedom thing? Then fairness matters to causing its appearance and its not this chemico-genetic asset to be resilent or have resiliency…? If that’s legimately within the range of how you see it, as it seems to follow from your descriptions and explanation, then the idea finally squares up for me. Recalls the Dorothy Rowe remarks you put me on to, critical of how people in clinics wrongly make resiliency stand for what about you does not or does need fixed something serious or not about you. Of course, so only the healer did the work that made you get better. Sorry, but that’s how it goes–I’m sure not with you.

  • Right for sure again, Hermes. LSD is medically far from toxic. But then you get hallucinigens all lumped together and end up with the Ecstasy craze worldwide. The biggest never talked about drug crisis in human history because the Left didn’t want to talk about and the rights people have simplistic views of the differences between the devil potions that tempt their neighbors and kids. E was banned after inhouse experiments in Kesey’s day, because it floods the brain with dopamine and causes brain damage on first use. But when the professionals brought it back the held back the history, just like one thing is no different from another. The Left here just wants the status quo fit for everything, survivors included. Keep all the stories happy to look at and the problems eas to fix if we all do it, which means not Left academicians, not mental health providers, not doctors. They can definitely hang back and cling to their entitlements. It’s followcthe leader here, Left and Right, but with E the Left killed the dream, right from upstairs. The latest giant pacifier for the surveillance state.

  • Sleves -Look around and sign back in., survivor. I have been pressing for you to return awhile now. If you make noise and disappear it’s a painful worry. When people do that and then come back way down the road, we get relieved. So the rap opportunity works all the way around. We have common ground scouted out from the experience of going After Seroquel, like with going past using street drugs all the time and how that got me clean friends and work opportunities. Get freed up for the protest on the 16th next month if you’re still online.

  • Sleves, you still out there? I couldn’t get clear about the message in your outbursts, even though I’m from there and know a lot of the differences. You shouldn’t act like you made us run you off. What are you doing? Is the program for normal feeling right? Try not to get moderated just to see your stuff go away. Think, old-timer.

  • Dr. Hickey, thank you very much. Prior to any deliberate investigations, when I was twenty-three I understood that since my skull wasn’t getting opened, and the drugs were of the same principles for inducement of altered thought and behaviors as street drugs, that the main thing I would be getting was information through relationship with a doctor. How much worse could being half-right turn out?

  • Had this happen only way back, but it still helped none of them moisten a finger to turn to the right page in their Bible for helping me explain myself about traumatic situations I expected to have brought me to them. They see and they don’t see and won’t make up for their dumbest stuff.

  • Sorry about the typo, for cover-up style. Also, in supporting human rights campaigns myself, I couldn’t figure the express recognition of all free information efforts decided by rights advocacy efforts any more appropriately. Just having read some of Gunther Grass’s writings on free expression of opinion, the impress of the vital importance of it remains potently for me. My tone seems stuck on partisan fervor that doesn’t matter to me at all, but my meaning in mind was not for how protest and committed actually partisan actions in the name of justice is unimportant, merely that without journalistic freedoms secrely defended and maintained, we would lose the means to oppose organized greed and power indefinitely. And theirs lots of free advertising for both APAs in venues like Psychology Today, but nothing too common about work as forceful and reliable as yours here.

  • Art Levine – Of course we need hardnosed journalism like yours and Risen’s more than we need the efforts of professional human rights activists, in reporting to us the observations they have made, like you with your gripping investigations, for we the people. I appreciate the complement of voices in any effect and the prior dependence of all defense of social justice on the future of the free press as legally promised. Especially nice is your care to higlight the implication of the APA’s cover-style in the case of therapeutic abuses involving money and sexual misbehavior with their clients. The analogy to the Church and its eventual anti-pedophilia stance works precisely. Try believing that the very same idea occurred to me years before reading your great presentation. Lots of people with personal reasons to care know what to think about each of “the runs of bad luck” that both torture and child molesting imply to both APAs, tout court. We are guaranteed front row seats for how these two professional public relations camps mean to set to work on ptients in perpetuum behind the force of their label. As lumbering and cloistered as Vatican political functioning can get, there is no way to best the stigmatizing attitudes of those professions emboldened to pass verdicts on those they claim to define dignity for.

  • Hi Dave, I’m just getting started on your work, previewing your multimedia website and Academia.edu. I don’t see anything not to like. But then nothing will stay altogether casual about your productions for me either. I moved out to dullsville that didn’t know it from St. Louis area about six or seven years getting pegged for a major troublemaker whose happy days were over by a miserable Jewish doctor I thought could help me learn something during a short stint in Portland. Oregon, not Maine. Anyway, my grandfather was married into the family from Illinois German coalminer’s stock and on my mother’s side there back two generations you see something pretty wrong. Indians darker than Ghandi could get, none with any of their stuff. Up here in PA more recently, returning to Penn State in rented and wrecked condition after suffering a ludicrous forced intervention that I did nothing to precipitate, I got busy with elective assignment work in folk class and tried to work out the registry game rules for our tribe through the Harrisburg office. That very teacher was by coincidence Jewish himself and riidiculously discriminatory toward me. I am not implying it was all that knowingly about anything but showing my meds, but in addition to worsening my classtime he also wouldn’t sign off on my English credits from Vassar. Pretty funny, huh? I know I shouldn’t relate it to the ethnicity of the two of them, but they were both self-styled liberal types offered up by the Academy, and I can’t see how that didn’t count to the both of them in a way not thought of for me. I mean that their game to put authority, power, and respectability in my face and pretend to see envy in my regard for it was impossibly interconnected to them enjoying their race game to themselves, no matter my being solid white in every way they could know. I don’t mean that to signify or justify any crude prejudices despite the pointed references. My aim just is to carry on seeing people make things count while behavioral scince looks to define it differently and not square up with their independent human source material about the end results. At any rate it stands aside of what I was just meaning to report about my distant relations, that we were Garrett’s on my mother’s mother’s side, and telling you that is as far as I’ve got or as close as come to getting my given name registered with Cherokee authorities in this country. The documentation, wasn’t it? Couldn’t find it at the time. Here looking at your work that very nearly works to remind me that I might as well not have been born in this country, for what history it demands that I keep up with and answer to about my thoughts and desires and what ones it would never help me keep up with. And of course the wonderful rules for keeping you thinking how not to work it out for yourself. I disbelieve the good will enshrined in the liberal cultural program here, inside and out and will hate the fact of its hypocrisy and betrayal of libertarian ideals and native rights as they count for better ideals until I die.

    On a lighter note , I naturally wonder if you knew Bill Moon. Besides his first book a few times, The Red Couch was the only other thing I’ve read of his front to back, just having dipped into River Horse and “Prairie Earth”. I recently picked up a nice used hardcopy of Mankiller’s biography, and tangentially I have enticed my son into reading Lewis and Clark and now have a running start on a pleasant little history of the LaClede’s. Only other choice thing really related to your personal discussion of roots would be the old novel Wakonta, about the Osage–you probably know. The dynamics of my upbringing and understanding due to it, literally baffle the establishment mental health operations and administrations types all over this place, to the point that it cannot be broght into apposition with anything they could tell me or require me to show them about my attitudes toward life. Sometimes they literally are deliberate murderers of the spirit and of historical truth without knowing how they made up their mind about, aren’t they? The liberal agenda is to reduce the whole issue to not at all or not ver intentionally and not in any way by design. But what you get and don’t get to lay claim to both constitute who you will be. Our conversation on race itself seemed halted rather pathetically after the Civil Rights era became normalized–I think, to the detriment of the token “underachievers allowed already allowed specially by law”. Such doubletalk as forces us to talk about the aesthetics of doubletalk as the liberal establishment forces us into doing can’t proceed to cover many specifics of dislocation or alienation as it means your lineage, and in its place mukticulturalism points back as obliquely and ineffectively as humanly possible to how race as the issue here is grouded in tribal rights. It’s just the way you said. I haven’t read this thread since first seeing the article when you put it up. Nice to have it here. Thanks.

  • Do you realizing the point you are missing? The oppositions good intentions can lead to results you don’t like, so the first step is to get those intentions understood. That might take rambling or fighting it out. But to divert attention from the author’s carefully considered focus on language and the type of policy it implicates, to some contrived variation on berating Mufphy himself doesn’t bring like minds together right.

  • Steve – Your welcome for them as ever. I can’t pretend to argue with your idea of how to get your gigs or keep them right. The problems with psychology proper are all matters of pedigree to me. The only point of that is to understand the increase to pure knowledge made by particular fruitful approaches, and so. It’s little walk of fame version, however, is undesirable for helping it to achieve the version of its stated aims that you stand for. Returning the diagnostic categories on MMPP-II, great heroes who never said no to lobotomy or (in-)civil commitment are so uninspiring, also. Take care and for what it’s worth, I will more likely catch up to your work in the thread after Bonnie’s book release event than before.

  • Sa – I want to underline that I feel real gratitude for your kind acknowlegement here and felt encouraged initially the first time of getting to read it through. I wish that everyone who gets caught in the act of trying to learn something for themselves, like you caught me, could experience the disclosure of cleverness and discernment, perspicaciousness, and sensitivity that your words expressed for me and that your taking the time and interest showed. Between Noel’s steadfast committedness and your encouragement here, and many other things about the MIA forum for dialogue and information, I was able to proceed directly from finding my feelings validated on to identify and work through definite recovery steps immediately after settling on what self-help methods to employ. When you clear the bar for some positive shift in your attitude or understanding, at long last, or manage to detect welcome change in your behavioral disposition, you notice yourself more comfortably attuned to the here and now, and feeling like making an outpouring of gratitude is just perfectly natural, then. Your comment to me here came before these things became actual for me, while I was still busy getting familiar with Noel’s working theories and views and her authentic manner for framing her explanations, so I had to limit my response to the show of gratitude implied in my first reply to you above. My feelings are more available for me to make reference to them now and words are coming to more easily to me, too. As usual, the big surprise in all of this, attaches to the fact that recognizing myself in my previous form happens with more clarity than it did while stuck like that. I hope that we can trade between the two of us in future exchanges what seem like the more dynamic objective measures and intervention techniques that seem worth putting faith in. For now, I’d say that the most important factor in approaching others’ who are emotionally in need is an expert grasp of the fact that communication is itself a dialectical process. My notice of this has happened strikingly a number of times while trying to disambiguate my thoughts and intentions, having just experienced a flasback triggered by passing traffic, with me in the middle of events mental and worldly, simply trying to comment coherently, and at less meandering length. Noel herself seems to have the complete practical understanding of what this ineluctable process of disambiguation means down to her marrow. In addition, although not pretending to speak for her at all, in my view she exemplifies rigor in her awareness of the fact that in attempting to express ourselves, indeed in trying to relate or function at all, due to our reliance on linguistic competence, we are each bound to find ourselves immersed in, and variously struggling for some level of success at disentangling our needs from our understandings of how best to pursue them. Her articles have proved to bring out for me the problem with the often distracting appeal of taking refuge in some sort of rationalistically isolated inner life. I feel like they’ve also led me to see that every kind of conscious experience implicates us in this very process of disambiguating our thoughts, perceptions, and feelings, in regard both to meanings as well as intentions and beliefs all the time.That’s a mouthful, but it amounts to saying we are not that different from each other, and indicates a big part of why everyone, no matter their history or condition, is a moral equal.

    Best of luck to you–Sa.

  • Acidpop- You suggest a very cool way in to thinking this idea over of reactions to and reactions from, that makes for trauma research. In a similar vein, I see the omission of a discussion of actual reaction times themselves to reflect the most obvious of insufficiencies of the current working theories for PTSD. If you are waiting to get killed behind the wheel unless you think fast, or made an object of revenge or further hatred by an abuser, not just any old lazy decision made as if routine fits the bill. Why will neuro-research not aim at this phenomena for psychosocial interests? If trauma victims aren’t particularly concerned with saving themselves or others in dangerous emergencies before getting impaired from some recognizable event, they definitely are later. They should be rewarded for their wise vigilance and not diagnosed for it, too, the. And how could you deny not getting concerned about how decisive and willing you must have to stay for instant reactions? The statements of theory I’ve seen come up short in revealing the certain recognition by researchers generally of patients as responsible actors in their own lives who are fully coscious of the fact. Elitism is another diagnosis aimed by behavioral science only away from itself and its coveted allies.

  • Hi Timothy, Probably it would be nice if academics and clinicians would get honest with themselves and join in admitting that affected people themselves have first crack at noticing or suspecting that they’re faced with problems in living. About the 99% of the time the very first concern added is for what a screwed up time it could be to have to start relying on the going programs for help or information. So, what Noel is obviously most clear about is that people who perceive their need for some attention to a problem basic to their experiencing will soon try obtaining attention that serves as feedback to help themselves figure out where they stand with their impairment or all the clinical guesswork that caregivers demand them to accept as objective fact or near enough not to doubt it’s out of the subject in question’s own hands. Next, this step of taking on varying roles and mimicing less natural attitudes in order to present something needed, ackowledged, or believed possibly helpful for eventually getting some real help for themselves, all gets called shady names. Those names ramify the diagnostic logic, and the disease appears irrevocably as the patient’s last mission in life. Learn all about it for good. Always think and say what it’s like. Subscribe to MIA and we’ll see your posts there. Be understandable and see how much people like you letting us help you. Stay near some tests.

  • So I had forgot that wasn’t the doctor. Don’t let my pure atheism worry you, if you can help it. I sometimes study religions or see how Mass is doing, or take in something preachy. For me, the truth of the matter is found in the ancient saying, that if bulls and lions had gods, they would pray to bulls and lions. Similarly, the monotheistic big three are whoppingly phallocentric, and can’t seem to locate theological or ritual to work out their escape from that norm–Islam among them having no real interest in trying. At any rate, they take an awful long time getting around to doing anything for women besides keeping them in line behind their kids for familiar praises, usually. I figure that no one lives without faith in something or knows much more about life in this world in terms of their ability to reason than that they’re just somehow here.

  • Angry Dad – Thanks for the ideas about how to rant and rave. We need athorough dose. It’s worse here. The intention of rapprochement between survivors and establishment is just another context for infighting on the Left. Most activists are thoroughly capitulatory to the systems opposed in their passionate displays and the need for approval by perceived authorities and dominant pressure groups runs high. Nothing gets done and stays done, except on Mindfreedom’s part, with wise eye to the future of the politics.

  • Someone Else – About your dream, I relate to the story of having that doctor betray your trust upon hearing it. The best approach to dreams is not to make your interpretations final or or prophetic. Not that you can’t dream right about the future any less than you can dream a memory or the place you are sleeping in. Your dream just can’t limit you, and so it isn’t prophetic as that suggests “determining” but is more like getting self-addressed invitations to change. Maybe you see the value in considering the judgments of others as supposed to have been of greater value than those of the doctors who hurt you, and who were anything but blessed strangers, S. E.

  • Noel – In following up now on this article, since just a couple of days ago when you answered me on another, significant points of recovery have taken shape for me. First, probably because of going bananas about everything I could recall about dual representation theory (on Jay Watts page) and how it fits much of my so-called symptomatology, I recovered the sense of engaged ownership of the memory of my first panic attack. I was seven, swimming in summer classes during a test, anticipated and perhaps caused the precipitation of the event (by focusing on the possibility ahead of time– vaguely conceived of.) I got freed up in terms of feeling good just imagining less fixation on the memory, then immediately had a mild panic attack triggered by a passing car. (This always happens to trigger some reaction for me at this time.) I like to get descriptions right, though, and can only talk along the lines of healing until some new fragmented memory comes together for me. I mean descriptions that go into how you are using or can or cannot use your mind as seems natural in terms of the sense of before, during, and after each marker event–trauma and “dissociation” on the one hand recovery or re-instantiation of comfortable affective connections on the other. Natural takes seem available, if only in the abstract no matter that the abnormal state has persisted for fifty or more years, go figure. And not just picturing yourself, but knowing about what you are looking for from your hoped-for change. The slate of fragmented memories is meanwhile covered with opportunities for better functioning for me, so I hope to learn the pattern.
    Secondly, persevering in the threads and getting involved in people’s stories and ideas, working at self-acceptance, venting, and articulating a lot subsequent to that first small recovery step, seems then to have enabled me to recover memory proper. Since getting involuntaried based on lies in court after getting arrested based on lies, not being allowed to opt for going to the hospital voluntarily and keep my full citizenship and gun purchasing rights intact, I had become unable to recall anything but the worst of all I knew was bad about it from experience. Nothing of significant benefit ever really came to me except once or twice temporarily from counselling, but not every meeting with clinicians had been dreadful, banal, and un- or mis-informative. Just most of them had. Now this recovery presented me with subdued levels of rational feeling compatible with the general context of consultations in which respect and interest were shown for me. No gush of emotions, no reaction per se, and yet not just emotional tone like when deliberately recalling yesterday’s emotion. This second step differed from the first in that the pleasant return of feeling lingered while I contemplated the fact of not having had such recollections for so long. But I doubt repression explains this. My sense of such a “forgetting is that it was wilful in some sense every step of the way, and that meant I had to keep my eye on not remembering anything but what I wanted never to forget about as wrongdings done to me. I wanted to describe this for you Noel because what you have facing you as required for classes and graduation is probably mostly just something you surpassed by the time you fixed on the reasons for pursuing this career. Like you, I think that for helping with problems in living the logic and the method needed are both already first and foremost in the language for how we choose to act or how can’t help but notice ourselves to be.

  • Hi Sa, I enjoyed your successful writing here. Specifically, you made a good articulation of the point you were driving at. You got this point right, that all the focus is off the facts of known treatment benefits. Your approach to the questions behind that appealed to me especially in how you showed the difficulty facing anyone trying to highlight the point of whether we even know what works, given how the reformers evolve their position to keep that concern as just some afterthought. Like for the next DSM meeting? You bet.

  • Hi Mary – Could I suggest some shading to the perceptions of psychiatrists’ mortal plight that Francis tries to sell us on? Seeing psychiatrists take on ego deflation is something else. It reveals that many of them are constantly dealing with that awful threat called come-uppance. When I was compliant but not the believer, the more perceptive doctors and I picked each other out and with no further adieu discussed what-if’s about what could happen like psychosis, taking my word for it I didn’t know the whole of the experience. We totally agreed on leaving the label in doubt as equals, and any rate as unrepresentative of my needs vis-a-vis them, since I was taking charge of what to think. I had luck like that with maybe a dozen doctors over twenty or so years. These men and women undoubtedly understood that my next step once managed care and physician rotations and career moves next ensued, would again mean immersion in the whole bungled up mix of neglectful malice. I believed that they were considering whether I’d be alright looking out for myself without them as the doctors. The other kinds of doctors, generally: (1)those who don’t know how to see past the collateral damage to get a private moment with their patient or client working effectively, and are concerned or afraid of hurting people or them hurting themselves, but don’t know how to innovate, (2) those who want not to slip in the ranks and get their come-uppance, the ones that all the little elves of the hospital back up when they want some authority, too.

    Over the years, the more perceptive doctors really punctuated my experiences less and less, and the other two types, the Making-do types and the Anosognosia-Titrator types were it. This is in my region of the Mid-Atlantic states, where now there are pretty much three or four hundred physicians that act either like order-followers or tyrants. The last genuinely friendly face I saw among them was from elsewhere and lasted in the med-check mill where I had to see her about three weeks. It’s the education of them at this point, added to everything else that shows us no reforms are coming unless in legal fights.

  • Right Sa, and whew what a lot of work to keep the point visible amidst this doubletalk of his and his kind. Attaching to that point is another. Here, rite-ch’eer, we still aren’t seeing people who could make the most of their uniqueness as licensed to offer services by pointing out that they are for patient advocacy ahead of non-patient advocacy in all cases. The going default position is non-patient advocacy and no one brings this up. That is because it is the simplest approach for keeping the doctor empowered to take over and explain away the patient’s concerns with their label(s) and the drugs. One source of the misery of all is neatly determined, Again.

  • Hi Rossa – You get the immediate relevance of the discussion with “Al” in short order, where it goes and might ought to and how it could. Since you keep it interesting for me the second time through, that makes me think that your writing is top of the line for anyone who gets here from nowhere special or Googles this or is looking without much experience, whatever they’re looking for. Nicely done–

  • Frank – Please take me for willing to stand to blame for the fact that all my intended meanings and connotations were not easily apprensible. I could also have misread yours, too. But I didn’t think so. I certainly never thought you were selling mental health treatment, but see why you might have suspected it. I wouldn’t have restorted to asking for you to look through your store of ideas, right then, except that you’re philosophy of responsiblity seems very consistent to me. My ideas had run out, as I said. Also, the motive for my interest as our exchange fronts it, gets into the sensitive area of how people buy in to the idea that we should criticize reform psyhciatry piecemeal and leave it’s ideology alone, and appreciate the efforts as at bottom well-meaning: Frank, I mean people who are deceived and who post a lot here.

    What I couldn’t have gotten right was this point of your analysis, which itself is susceptible to multiple interpretations: that Big Pharma is the worst of causes and mainstream psychiatry’s fault is standing in as their bastion of puppets. I have to think it all over because it’s nice strong wording that diferent people in different situations react to in novel ways. Also, I want to clarify very simply how my take on your position runs. Your first reply, in general terms throughout, is the same outlook as mine. So the differences that I can understand in getting the communication clear, is to state explicityly that my thinking was forhow mental health is hawked by those who do it, how drugs are pushed by those who bill you and look under your tongue for fun, and how the force, coercive intent, and abrogation of civil rights are denied as the actual plays in the game they are, of making people recite lies about their problems in living and mental distress, while all tolerance and paternalistic help shown them is exactly intended as their behavioral reward for showing for belief in their inferiority.

    Add to that the expectation of adhesion to the psychiatric ideology that they got their just deserts and right diagnosis, unless it’s perhaps too light-handed, and you have the gist of my position. In other words, as usual, I’m trying to tie together the thrust of Phil Hickey’s grasp of the problems caused for survivors due to modern psychiatry, the Szaszian critique as Joanna Moncrief understands and extends it, and more lately what all Bonnie Burstow has in mind for Network Against Psychiatric Assault. Then there’s all of us–especially, as having arrived at the appropriate belief that mental illness is a myth. Take Andrew Yoder’s word for it, it helps keep everything straight. Alex who comments as a survivor and careprovider has his own hardline account of labels and the disease model, I now see. You and me essentially agree there, too, I think. Psychiatrists just could intiate treatment by telling people why it’s wrong for them to get labelled, and that mental illness is a myth and we would then not have the same war of words they demand we engage in with them. They then could explain why no such thing as a uniquely psychiatric judgment of your mental health, character, or personality can exist without fallacious content based on the basic error of calling “mental illnesses” things. Put together with the drug awareness and analysis of that whole epidemic, we’ll stand.

  • Frank, thanks for the time taken to get back to discussing these things I put to you. I know that you are consistent. Coming to this thread just put me into a doubting phase, like for why people who should know better conceive of entitities that constitute the named disorders and then go ahead with making believe that the doctors treat these fictional entities. It was real, querlous doubt behind my comment.

    The mention of Laura Delano refers to a somewhat backaways blogpost. But I worked at envisioning the implementation of her idea for myself, the appearance of true Open Dialogue in peer support group context. But that language could water down her original concept, and I mean to preserve it as represented. Anyway, imagine folks talking about inviting psychiatrists not to locate in your intentional community, or newly incorporated planned development. And so on with different kinds of restricted politeness for everybody that might be good to count on if they weren’t all banking on their entitlements as these are outgrowths of mandatory treatment protocols and the insane insanity defense. You’d probably get around to hauling in a professional that stood for your kind of care soon enough, and long enough for them to assist your group (so that the advocacy measures were strictly aimed at benefitting patients and not relatives and so forth, ad nauseam). In turn, nothing but the augmentation of their practices would ensue by this turn of events, and there might be real competition. I’m not sure how far Laura might have thought it through if she thought of her idea in this way. Things get very precarious at this point, since psychiatry and psychiatrists have never competed for work like ordinary persons. I wouldn’t want to tie things up speculating about it and this fantastic world it signifies, either.

    Same doubts about getting your dope without hassles, dope aka meds and with the facts found out rightly. You know how David Healy, the old-fashioned shock doctor goes at keeping information on drugs worth something, and means to stand for certain temperaments and attitudes in prescribing them himself…. But at the same time, his approach in his blog is to keep the doctors thinking that they are misapprehending their hegemonic authority in the name of how they get their advice taken seriously.
    That thought wasn’t occurring, but it relates. Talk to you–

  • moretoit – I appreciate your passionate consideration of grievances all to true. How about some focus on ramping up the toughness of our speech, like for state-sponsored murders for at least some “suicide by cop” scenarios. In this one of those, for instance, modern psychiatry is responsible for the nature of all the natural reactions and excuses leading up to the report of the deadly incident, all based on and relying “insanely” on the ridiculous notion that mental illness can exist and cause trouble.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442703/Capitol-Hill-lockdown-Miriam-Carey-thought-Obama-stalking-taking-schizophrenia-medication.html

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/miriam-carey-whitehouse-rammer-police-death

    I am not saying psychiatrists are to blame for the cop who couldn’t drive, though, or for anything but their own actions and a host of intentional inaction. Like Wolf Blitzer so unknowingly admits “we don’t know exactly, exactly what happened.” Miriam Carey died. Psychiatry happened. And Steny Hoyer happened. What godawful allaround loss.

  • Tina – I read as far as your second main section “Criminal responsibility;” and want to intersperse Slobogin at this point. From what you say, it’s instructive to read him, and although you couldn’t use the word yourself to good effect, his views seem to result in noxious effects on public discourse. My understanding and experience of the pertinent arguments here about fair trial issues are minimal, but my acquaintance with the issues that constitute substantial impact for defining and including or setting aside discussion of mental capacity is more broad. In that debate, my knowledge is not well-rounded enough, however, with comparative judgments as for the issue of intelligence testing or–as you explicitly mention–let’s say, unconventional, primitive, anarchic, or antisocial worldviews. Thanks and best wishes

  • Dear Sa, I look to gain appreciation of your family’s situation as best I can in reading your comments. You are reaching out to help yourselves, but you matter to me for reaching out on my behalf and for how that shows Team MIA what’s up outside of all they have tried to imagine on our behalf. I am sorry sometimes to have to get busy and reveal that my knowledge and understanding limits my interest to one of concern for the feelings of the authors, you know. But they are doing their work, and I’m not doing any, so we have to live with this separation between us–i. e., with them saying what to think about for ourselves, while urging us that what they think is true is worth trying to believe; with us giving it a try.

  • Duane – No button for your last reply to me. To clarify myself, I had thought you had acquaintance with or background in the social sciences somehow since first seeing your comments. I worked in private enterprises, formally studied as little social science in the guise of instruction for working the field as was possible for me in light of fulfilling academic requirements. And I meant about people and their illusions, not so much how they get or don’t get well or “abilified” or about whether the inner child or the cognitive errors need their attention. I was still talking in reference to the context of crime and cover-up that Randy thinks we aren’t talking about in regard to his occupation and his peers.

  • Noel, Your concerns expressed here were sort of central for me the first time I read your article last year. I had looked at this longer ago

    http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/reexperiencinghyperaroused-and-dissociative-states-posttraumatic-stress-disorder

    and used it to try to get my psychiatrist to talk to me about anything relevant to what my experience is like. My daily life involves waking up and not being manic or delusional and seeing this is the second worst thing, since I am still messed up with stress and the challenges presented by the mediocrity and artificiality of the allied mental health industries. Bringing up the ways that clinicians have failed to appreciate what they are doing as opposed to what would work better or at least help better to explain what might be remedial has kept me from finding any comfort zone with service providers in my area. I believe there just is not excellence to be had widely in any of the fields. Nor is anything on track to assure that there will be. The default position among clinicians is to comfort each other, in a sense, about how bad these mental illnesses are, and how hard it is to do anything about them for people. I see your panel here as not innocent of that.

  • Dr. Watts – The reason for expressing my first remarks originated with my apprehension of the fact that your critical thinking style suggested receptive social manner and attitudes, as counterintuitive as that may seem to folks who think you’re spiteful to deconstruct these images of scientific perfection, or who don’t see why apparatchiks of the power brokers don’t get a lot of money but still deserve heat.

    From the first, it was apparent to me that CBT philosphy fails to square up with age-old criticisms of talk therapy for failing to acknowledge the social reality and clients’ place in it–their money needs and auxiliary to work social life and class obligations, for instance. All the problems are located beneath the skin for Dr. Beck. Additionally, I’d looked at the working theories for PTSD myself. (BTW, Here we had a nice turn of events when George Bush declared that we didn’t need the “D” there. Now we have the Man saying “It’s just like diabetes!”) So, the leading candidate for explanatory sufficiency is dual representation theory.

    By making use of the concept of a Verbally Activated Memory and a Situationally Activated Memeory they fill out the concept of fragmented memories, where the affect (I guessed mass affect to be most appropriate) is triggered subpersonally by environmental cues associated with things you don’t literally recall. This can help explain the crazy effect of feeling all kinds of strange because you don’t have any evidence experientially of your ongoing flashback. Instead you have to read off the bodily cues and changes in your desires and inclinations, whereupon the idea is to get onto the relevant memory or the general type of connection to the most likely trauma sequence and revive the connectedness between SAM and VAM, and then let go and move on.

    “Fragmented memory” was too big a word for CBT, and forget about VAM and SAM. They handle the problem with descriptors like “lack of empathy”, which is only so apt, and they never stop indicating “Say you are emotionally numb, victim–” like I did above. It hints deceptively at the real nature of the phenomenon, however. More accurately, there is a consciousness dwelling on the stress itself, I feel, and an attempt to ferret out the sympathetic reactions tied into to the myriad constant triggers. Also, you may or may not be reflectively engaged so that you are judging that consciousness. I think it is important to spend lots of time just experiencing stress without trying to watch what your mind is telling you about it–just keep busy with things.

    My flashbacks have recently gone from almost continuous re-plays of time-slices of a near crash on a bike (hey–a Triumph), lasting for between seconds for the emergency part to maybe hours for the ride up to it, happening many hundreds of times in a day, down now to dozens of theses reminders in every few hours’ time, but no more. But it took the idea the CBT hierarchy and authors left out, that they could not have been acquainted with. More interestingly, just as Peter Breggin asserts in Toxic Psychiatry, this event took place more than fifteen years ago, never bothering me significantly at the time, and only magically resurfaced only after a vehicular attempt on my life a couple of years ago, which happened to me while crossing the street near my home. Breggin, who deserves mention for his service to the cause, also asserts his belief in the dangers of mental hospitalization as sources of trauma. Now the CBT guide for PTSD will have none of that antagonism, but know lots about it, because as you can see elsewhere, like in their DPAFU manual, in sotto voce terms they admit to systemic deficiencies in terms of malign neglect of much more subtle dimensions than outright abrogation of civil rights visits on patients. Once–very slightly they disclose their awareness that they are helping with problems in the trade. But, of course, it pans out to be helping psychiatry onto the good track that includes them. And you know they read up on Dual Representation Theory before putting their work out, too, this CBT press group. But they want everything their way, and all is not well for us with that.

  • Dr. Hickey, It’s culture so-called is pretty distortive, too, but in line with how Freud titillated everyone, believe it or not. The present philosophers of science who seem best at locating the future for neurology stress as delusively influential their Cartesianism, moreover. That keeps them talking to brain tissue and hearing it talk back, as I mentioned to you once.

  • Dr. Wallace – Your radical conversion after reading Breggin’s expose’ still shows you taking off like a rocket with the work on your perspective that you share here. Let’s qualify the point about ad hominem by following up it’s relation to credentialism more widely, too. I’m sure it crosses your mind, in writing your articles, besides inspiring openness and courage among your colleagues, to lift the very general and profound blanket condemnation of the voice of mental patients in treatment as well as survivors who already have taken heart. I see your interests in how treatment might prove to work–at long last–more therapeutically from the patient’s perspective to reflect the attitude by which I chose to remain labelled and compartmentalized within the service mazes here in the U.S. for the first fifteen years of coping with my dysfunction in the recommended way. My careproviders never had my faith in their rituals and beliefs, though. They just proved everything Szasz said about narrowness of mind and self-styled liberals acting out and calling it healthy and kind.

    Since my childhood involved me with heavily intertwined give and take between the public and parochial school systems, and I understood this tertiary influence early on, Szasz was easier for me to read when he developed metaphors and analogies for sacred symbols, priestly relations, heresy, and such things in explaining institutional corruption by analogy. I hope that you will keep an eye open for why various colleagues of yours could not open up to Szasz, Breggin, Foucault, who just suddenly make themselves look alive now that all of Bob Whitaker’s books format data for them. I know why in general, but how could they stand & how did they stand looking at the collateral damage and taking their jolly time charting it as progress?

  • Fiachra – Your links to Academic, FYI. Intense. The Irish Times article. We have nothing so sanguine and pro-choice here in the regular daily rags.

    We certainly need customer data flowing out of the services on offer like we get here…and the encouragement to be gained be off the beaten path recovery stories. I see the missing element to be theoretic justification for both the therapies in place and similarly understand the primary need of survivors to make unrelenting criticism for the lack of acknowledgement of what in the case by case rundown of present bad treatment (and never making up for it) dare not speak its name.

  • Duane – I was just looking to keep up with you and follow your point. The sequence doesn’t work so will because your posts all end up after a time delay. But yeah, that’s enough. The question was just along with my remark about being old…in the generative phase. Do you stay occupied with everyone’s welfare and their ability to address it? was the point intended. Your notion of CBT’s worth is amply generous. It’s not got final steps to growth and recovery right.

  • Duane – So my take on Steve M. is that he is mostly right, and when wrong usually it’s for wanting to keep things light. Light as in “accessible” to the person who hasn’t got the point yet about something.

    Take the fact of what things can’t exist, for instance. He bums about that now and then.

    But the things that all fit together once you begin to understand according to clear ideas are so-o-o satisfying. I always feel sure that intellectual bite will be the reward of a lifetime, myself.

    Therapy doesn’t exist, for instance. Smart little muckraker Amy Watt. Szasz wrote the book on that just fine, too. So he couldn’t sell his convictions to the dog and pony show of Psychiatry and CBT, is that why to pretend things should exist just a little while to stifle someone’s sobs about it? I guess so.

    Anyway, the relationship fundament stands in proper relief against the correct conception of therapy as the abstraction after the fact if you, the client, adjust. All you have to double check in sessions is whether you fully understand that it’s totally you adjusting, as in the intransitive case. No one’s adjusting you. But good luck finding therapists who won’t try that fun impossible thing indefinitely. That’s one of the things CBT does, keeps the therapist tasking with his little quiz. But you, the client, once in there are adjusting in solo, and you got therapy because you had a chance to, not for walking some line.

  • Hi Duane, I appreciate that you kept me directed for following the drift of the thread, relevantly. Something good just happened to me that coincidentally has to do with my connection to any interest in CBT”s effectiveness, but why go into it. It was just good and the CBT book didn’t tell me how to work toward it or conceive of its description according to the most current leading theory…. The thing that mattered was sending an email to one former therapist.

    Anyway, Duane, I hadn’t read the whole of your long post. Your position matters to me relative to its mattering to you, which is my whole rule for that, and I see so little to question you about. I rolled over one day and woke up in the generative phase, and that keeps me most occupied with how people think it’s alright to kid themselves or dream on–you?

  • Steve – Re: your last comment to Duane above …”their theory has zero predictive value” –right.

    I appreciate your stamina in keeping up with the thread and helping everyone to clarify hunches and insights. You’re almost always right. Here you bring the general response back to about the most meaningful explicit connection to the intrinsic value of the article. But all the CBT books refer to labels and hold forth with their guidance counselling in terms of no real additional harm done by the most common bad treatment protocols. Until you get started on the good CBT thing, you just must have some stable symptomatology that waits around in the shape of the true disorder. “Right, doctor?” So…– Good. But yuck.

  • You’re aiming to do something the right way, and the way itself agrees with Dr. Berezin’s purposes. The difference is one of explanation, and the explanatory approach that’s less familiar to you might work out to be just what the doctor ordered so that you can keep your mind open to what counts in deciding if every patient you get by referral is evaluated perfectly. You wouldn’t want such an awesome success rate for you and the attending physicians just ruined with a smudge of false positive, would you?

  • Sa – Agreed with calling spades spades: CBT is a camp within the system and does unofficially but generally contain folks who want to reign in those unscientific Hearing Voices people, and similarly its representatives are trying not to raise red flags on “non-patient advocacy models” for treatment beyond what it can get behind with the officially sanctioned British Psychological Report getting hawked here now by Lucy Johnstone &co. My criticism is less for what they and Beck put on offer than how they all promote it and defend it. There’s lots of history to the problems with getting these various pseudo-health authorities to stand back and encourage patients to take ultimate repsonsibility for their own choices. To admit the limited scientific validity of their claims, too.

  • Ron – Really excellent comment to interject…re: “possibly related to things like confusion and demoralization. If people start noticing when things seem just a bit more clear…” And for sure if therapists start telling people what you’re telling Audrey it will help.

    I see the reference in your statement to include the essence of my own process of adjustment over time to something a little better. And, of course, with a label for the bad, dangerous bipolar, and symptoms and history for DPAFU and PTSD, I met with nothing but catastrophizing, overgeneralization, and black and white thinking when I tried to bring up how exactly I felt versus the label identification of me. In fact, I could take the moments of clarity had during the use of medication (like for short-term or even PRNs) and apply the confidence it gave me when I took vacation from drugs. You need to connect with your deepest feelings to get the handle on how you are there at that level and it means you and your body are one.

    The further point that intersects with Noel’s intentions is the relatedness of all disorders, in that none of them are just sitting inside you in some knowable form and causing you to be unable to change–in the final analysis. If they were you’d be able to seek help from the neurologist. So if you tackle emotional pain, it isn’t that some similarity between disorders is what can let that work happen for everything from dissociation to panic to psychosis, it’s in the nature of the difficulty of how the whole person is involved in the production of symptoms, in managing them, and in learning who to secure relief from what they make you believe about yourself and how they impair you. No matter the psychiatric category or label.

  • Mark – On your link, the line of criticism that R. goes into here is generally the case throughout science presently, just worse with human sciences. To get a really clear understanding of the sorts of issues with keeping psychology honest and productive, and to see how it cannot function as a be all and end all road to self-sufficiency, inner peace, and great insights, please check this out, too.

    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa590.pdf

  • transformation – I can’t tell if you are engaged with your topic here. The point of explaining straightforwardly or roundabout that mental disorders don’t exist is that their status as medical problems is moot. Since BPD, ADHD, whatever are not discrete entities they can’t get identified and treated in a person. There just is the whole person who you can bet has tried or hopes to change, and you “help” them. But they do all the work, not you.

  • T. M. – Alex posting above has a point relevant to yours. Randy fielded it with somewhat narrow intent, but taken more broadly her idea can just be thought of as looking for ways of seeing who has what it takes to interact effectively in human relations fields, and currently no determined effort to keep that topic in ongoing debates (that the public might see) happens.

  • Dr. Hickey, I think the latest thing to re-open all my old wounds with this massive brain science bureauacracy has to do with looking at a neurological research paper. The authors compared neurological conditions to the presenting symptoms associated with a couple of psychiatric disorders. They summarily stated the reasons for not considering these latter ones medical conditions and just plainly said that they have psychosocial causes. But psychiatry never does that and neurology acts like its just another day for them to keep the news inhouse.

    Thanks for the great forum.

  • If you feel like it or get around to it, Frank…

    Can you sympathize with or respect the position that Laura Delano had championed of “abolition”? What a great way to make sure we have a well-rounded debate, I thought.

    Do you see some less than phoney reason for keeping people from getting drugs they want (for themselves) and no more, and getting them where they want? I can’t think of one. Introducing PRNs as the norm instead of maintenance doses seems sensible to me. I can think of a million things that would have been worth hearing if they advice ran…Try this if…, but don’t overdo it, because…See how this minimum dose helps and it’s best if you keep track of how notice it if you always take days off and never let it build up in your system. I am sure that the person who takes the drug should have all the say unless they commit crimes.

  • Frank, Obviously, you allude to the logical possibility of realinformed consent consisting of relying on helping people understand that they aren’t mentally ill as the condition of suitability for obtaining release from forced treatment programs. And then communities would need to start the programs up again or we would have to sign off on our rights in order to get desired treatment why?

  • Timothy, I also just thought of cooling my jets to be more understandable in my aims. So take into account, that I realize that mistaken conceptions add up and the people at the end of the line of one or more of them often cant’ see things any other way. The social problem or problem with the culture of behavioral science might be exemplified in the continuing indelibility of Freud’s masterful investigations, for instance. To the neediest among us and not the most happily educated, the truth of Freud is his supression of data regarding abuse against girls, as it’s officially now briefly mentioned. Are we to think he didn’t suppress the facts because he hadn’t the foggiest about even little boys? Horrors, Sigmund: the truth. And our educators in the field: thanks for nothing much.

  • Randy – Thanks, indeed for taking the risk of getting didactic. All the best MIA compatriots are here, and my comments above are offered in spirit skeptically for reasons that I stand by, but that are only said as well as I could, nevertheless. We used to have a radical psychiatrist blogging here named McLaren, I believe, and that was my introduction to Turner’s article on bias. One way of telling you what lacks in the CBT approach is this: the talk of the goal is feeling and knowing how to express all your emotions. The list then runs: anger, surprise, fear, joy, etc. But what about rage and despair? As you should admit, they are swiftly medicated. But there’s no hurry, it’s only been thirty years waiting to meet someone who heard about real trauma and asked if it ever made me feel cut-off from real life.

  • John,
    So, more straightforwardly, what technique cannot be implemented badly? I would doubt a CBT artist’s claim that no good use of a biofeedback machine that helped you lower alpha states and increase theta states can be proven yet. I think there obviously are myriad uses for such a procedure and the only thing stopping the spread of it is bad therapists, lack of imagination for studies, and shoddy notions of how to administer lots of access to the equipment.

    Our CBT coalition is Peter K., Lucy Johnstone, Ann ?–I trust and like them, and the folks who sow seeds of doubt about their integrity strike me as truly chauvinistic in their aims. Even so, CBT is as scientist-ic as it is scientif-ic. You can’t develop an ontology to support its claims, if my source for that is right. And you can think it over yourself. What actual t-h-i-n-g-s are the measuring ever?–Interpretations, period. It helps to give a second to thought in the name of managing your emotions, but what if you are already good at it? Now you develop this tendency to fill out little forms to see what everything might have been about if it hadn’t been caught in the act and “revised”. The symptoms lists that most of its handbooks addresses work as prompts for how to conceptualize something you are feeling and put it into pre-set categories, but with PTSD, for example, it might need ten other sets of lists equally well. It’s a big forced re-education effort in that regard. And as Sa says above, Are they criticizing what damage orthodox treatment is doing already? Not enough–

    It’s good for ideas and to give the clinician distractions from telling you how to behave, but it’s still relating that gives you space for trying yourself out in different moods and different situation ensembles of stressors and rewards. Yet Peter, Ann, and Lucy J. are up to something good. Just not gospel truth money back guarantee good with anybody who ends up doing it. When you can devise an infinite number of psychologies, and you can, why pretend that only one is right?

  • Hi Timothy, I came back to share a recent discovery. In addition, I hadn’t read your biopic until now, and so hadn’t realized until now that it was your first post. A very ambitious one. I had intended to look at your previous efforts, too. I’m sure you’ve got folders of old stuff on hand, and that’s good. Best luck on whatever’s coming up, but I do hope you’ll enjoy something from these topically related pieces.

    http://philpapers.org/archive/ELPTSO.pdf

    http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53a79084e4b01786c921de45/t/53a854fae4b0cd712a481fb1/1403540730432/The+Phenomenon+of+Boredom+%28Martin%2C+Sadlo+%26+Stew%2C+2002%29.pdf

    The first can be thought of as appearing due to the recent rejuvenation of the Sartrean critique of psychology by Dr. Jonathon Webber, while the second represents the typical litany of behavioral healthcare specialists suggesting all the usual handwringing about what to actually endorse in people’s natural mode of acquaintance with reality, given their terribly unworkable views of self, and others and their almost peasant-y ideas of real free will. Also, that second article was the earlier published of the two and is sort of far on in a long line of what transpired after the academic and professional elite here rejected Sartre’s advice about advocating self-sufficiency and emotional self-control, kinds of which are well with anyone’s reach. That is, he argues that given the right conditions for cluing them in about how they effect their decisions and how their decisions shape their perceptions, people can be well served by common sense. Not just for staying adjusted, but for conditioning social relations positively as well. Not many workbooks, plenty of fessing up, you could say. Maybe you won’t want to go back to the other more common type of serious research much, and will get compelled to wonder “what if”–about the whole industry and its teaching arrangements.

    Good luck in things–

  • Seth – I lingered here and it wasn’t to go proxy for everything you found disagreeable in the article and of its reception in the web. I chose to dialogue because you seemed to want to come to terms with your dissatisfaction and seemed to believe something like setting the record straight on Szasz’s legacy had to be done. I respected your concerns and learned from the discussion, so let’s wrap it up. To the point of your remarks, neither am I a conservative. I just like such things as some of these great talkers thought and said who were. I extended my remarks on such meaning of freedom as I bear witness to in life, one indispensable to me for understanding which of the many “freedom”‘s Professor Fontaine was trying to specify, the one he picked for Dr. Szasz meaning something to me like “You did it. You said it. It’s on you.” Szasz had written, for instance, “Responsibility is a zero sum game.”

    Dr. F. has committed himself to some theory that I doubt is true, though, and I suspect academic license plays a part in his presenting that thesis of his as such, since while he uses it to justify the remarks that follow it, however concatenated, the later remarks don’t establish good reasons for believing it in turn. That’s why I keep calling attention to Hannah Pickard’s article “Mental Illness Is Indeed a Myth”. She shows the stronger defense that Szasz had available to him for demonstrating the mythic character of psychopathological determination of “mental illnesses” as entities that psychiatrists do medical work in terms of .

    So Seth, Do you believe Szasz and eventually most leading psychiatrists didn’t all see that he was leaving that door wide open? It’s unlikely to me that he never thought of the stronger defense, as it’s right within arm’s reach of his weakeer one. Academic license just is a kind of a way of getting along for our buddies the good psychiatrists, the folks who Dr. Fontaine rubs elbows with, people who knew Szasz as a very old man and want to have our support these days, but who still don’t want to admit that psychiatry does more harm than good and will for a long time, that the problem is not just it’s theories and culture, but the people in it and all the people who are going to be in it for many generations, and that it could go away without being missed if the right effort got backed to replace it. If Dr. Fontaine is producing scholarly literature that those less acquainted with its purposes can enjoy, as he so ably is, he also is great at giving the game away, never mind that we don’t partake in its dramas as the colleagues and peers of the hobknobbing do-gooders of psychiatry.

    Have the last word, then Seth, and let’s let Emmeline finally take a break from this and us, OK? But to make myself clear, here’s something else I know. During one of my (voluntary) hospitalizations, whoever was the lead psychiatrist on the ward decided to put the whole ward on suicide watch until further notice. For his whole week of rotation in that capacity, every inmate was asked every fifteen minutes by someone with clipboard in hand to tell them–no matter where they were or what they were doing or trying to do–if they had any plans to hurt themselves or anyone else, or if they were thinking they might commit suicide. Dozens of patients. This one thing getting done in exclusion of any other caregiver/patient contacts outside of groups. Dozens of times every shift. Never dealing with such readily available “data”, the mainstream academic critiques generated by this Academy and theirs in the clinical fields here are strictly gratuitous. But I like getting to share in their high cultural treasures as much as anyone with a good career or nice entitlement does. I promise.

  • Joel, I don’t see why you can’t make use of the opportunities afforded you to meet people halfway. Right in this thread are folks who believe in brain dysfunction and meds for lots of reasons. But you want to issue a clarion call that gets people to deny their disillusionment with the system. You can’t stop and say a nice I second that to the comment that approximates one of your own beliefs. Man, you want it all at once and right now without dissent, and apparently with no missetps allowed either. Quit running away from ideas, doctor.

  • W., Off topic, but take the war on drugs. Could it go on if behavioral healthcare took a stand? Obviously not. But once you obtain the perspective on psych hospital treatment, you understand that the whole industry thrives on just such nonsense as the war on drugs creates, and they won’t challenge the myths and stereotypes that keep their anti-drug and dual diagnosis programs mandatory and funded and seen as topnotch.

    The same thing again with so-called misdiagnosis. Lucy Johnstone is right that all psychiatric diagnoses are misdiagnoses, since they aren’t what the drugs treat as though the prescriptions are somehow medically therapeutic. They are drugs the same as street drugs for how they fit the subjectively determined need.

    Good work, wileywitch. Plus, I am glad you are careful to say PTSD symptoms.
    I am glad you are careful to say PTSD symptoms, because the best logic is to try look into the labels that exhaust your presenting symptoms but not to label yourself. Rather actually, knowing I’m like thousands, it is undeniable that for me I got drugs not recommended for my specific problems. The culture of the industry supported getting those disfranchised customers for life. So they have looked the other way from trauma however they could. They censor their verbal reports so that big words like transient mental illness and derealisation never get heard or thought of. They won’t turn to page xxx or page yyy for the disorders that point to your situation intead of your mind. But I finally see what I was doing to make my suffering better and worse in cycles. Besides really having to adjust to episodic flashbacks, I compensated for the stress by “staying up in my head” and barreling through anxiousness and panic until the aggressive attitude became second nature. Meanwhile, I couldn’t rightly notice symptoms under the influence of meds and eventually feeling numb turned into my constant emotional state. I had to get out of putting myself into a state of shock when waking up to the hyper-sensorium, and get out of suppressing the reaction, too. Now what really is wrong with me in terms of post-traumatic stress has come to seem bad enough that I never think my mind is giving way to mania or delusion. It took noncompliance outright just to get all the facts available for working it out.

  • N.B. Seth – I am not saying that I did serve, though. That’s just an expression to make up for having no political home but the far right in military matters, hard right is. I liked Buckley and enjoy Pat Buchanan and supported Reagan until Iran-Contra. But it was not hot anywhere when it was time to decide about going in. So, regarding how my life matters in terms of freedom has meant what it did, and if civil libertarians claim Szasz as theirs for posterity, and they unofficially do, that might be what to accept as his legacy for now. But it is also true that Dr. Pickard’s updating his argument and abiding by the principles for meaningful reform according to his prescription in clever and effect ways. You have to take hope where you can get it. Different career academics will promote different interpretations of Szasz over time, and maybe Michael Fontaine wants some of them to think about it right now, but he fears a feeding frenzy of mad academic competition and so wants Szasz to be thought lacklustre unless they are already in the know. You know, no wild surprises or hullabulla until he’s got all his aces in hand. Why don’t we stay on his good side for that possible reason?

  • Seth-I follow you and I feel you. Stay with me now a minute. You understand that Dr. F.’s up there at Cornell watching in, right? So, is that really how you are supposed to spell poo-poo? I want to know because I promise that wasn’t going on and that means it is value judgment city. By the way, in youth I was solicited (probably high math scores) by alittle accelerated program that automatically put you into Cornell’s graduate program. But something appealed to me at Vassar and I entered there to study Classics. However, I wanted to work, so I left and got into bidding and fulfilling civilian contracts on U. S. Army and ROTC bases around the country, running crews, and cashing checks. I’m hard right military and I know what I’ve got on me. I fully understand Szasz’s ethic, but don’t need to stay so polite as that. I believe completely in keeping memoryies alive. I know that I remain unstable, too. But I operate from 100% rational beliefs and look to make up for my mistakes. I like that Dr Fontaine is trying to get somewhere with his knowledge of Thomas Szasz and so-called human nature and want to see more of it and better work, too. So we have the same ultimate goal.

  • madmom- I got you on that, so if you want to have Emmeline pull down your email address you can probably get her to. I am–maybe unmistakably– American, and although I could have been brought up with biracial consciousness, it escaped emphasis likely as not because the language had been let go down through the generations. Typically, I know only the language that I have to know.

  • Sa – You’re doing a great job. To clarify, you seem to recognize that with behavioral healthcare the way to learn first for your own benefit–very unfortunately–starts with learning criticisms of the system in place from the points of view that are also outside the system. This is true throughout the fields in question both academically and clinically. You see that many of the alternative professional voices, once connected, leave the tacit recognition of some kind of legitimacy for almost all the institutional practices in place, anyway. That the alternative voices are spotty and over-selective of what they are willing to come down hard on.

    I want to suggest that with diagnosis and so-called illness, we should be willing to believe in the absolute overlap between any one type of psychopathology with any other, that is, in the total interpenetration of the effects of putative dysfunction on the person. Therefore, the huge sin of psychiatry is taking these disorders as discrete and somehow permanent entities. Psychology, of course, goes right along with this, and practitioners are glad to have their options for referring cases to chronic ailments beyond their means to “treat”. Most are glad to pretend that the terminology of labels applies to determined categories of need (represented in terms of deficiencies and so on) that are considered as viably separable from everything they could do in a therapy session. They are glad not to learn the basic words for mental problems or at least never bring them up, content to tie their views of a patient to the interpretation implied by their label, and pleased as punch that consensus is easy to reach about who besides the bonafide mental patient should make their decisions.

    Your son or daughter can most definitely get better, but as badly as they are incapacitated, they aren’t recovering medically from anything much. Their objective condition allows them to change, and somehow their interpretations of their experience will bring them back to less and less instability and less impairment of judgment and more accurate self-concept. But doing it yourselves is completely right. If you work with pros, you have to them into your onw personal program. None of the efforts I have ever seen at hospitals or with licensed professionals who I got to see for anything but a few moments showed right attitudes about seeing just how the patient was stuck and disabled versus how they were frustrated in their effort to cope or explain their incapacitation, or get explanations for the abnormally reduced quality evident in their ability to relate and work and enjoy their lives. Most had given up on themselves and in having definite interest shown for their understanding in stages, and were still hoping that this attention might come, I believe.

    For me, travelling far beyond my geographic location was the only way to get a straight answer about being bipolar or not, once some doctor had chosen that diagnosis for me based on one phone call from a former friend (then a psych intern) before meeting me. That label then was all the meal ticket and writ of habeas corpus in favor of every psychiatrist and all their little elves that was ever needed to keep me from once hearing words like “depersonalization or derealization” no matter that I described traumas ad nauseam. I wasn’t a weepy sort of guy, and so wasn’t “hurt”. I can only believe it gets worse for people who get the “right” label, at least usually.

    Likewise, no one, that is, no licensed professional that I got to see for any length of time–ever asked me or reflected appropriate concern with how I might fear or hate MY symptoms. It’s like they could do no more than believe that I would be OK if I hadn’t gotten this disease and talk in general around the fact of that unfortunate detail. So having this one intelligent and unassuming doctor in her white coat make fifteen minutes for me, and say that she did not believe that my cycle of hospitalizations made me a candidate for her study of bipolar reactivity was my first and only free chance out of second class citizenship. She went on to ask me if I got paranoid, puzzling over the records I’d shared. She took my word for it that it was No. She was worth trusting, and offered the most I ever got from all these people, most of whom want to have our faith based on promising some tidy reforms to this network of entitlements they put on offer as “care”. Although I’m making a joke when saying that the best counselling I ever got was from lawyers, it is not a lie.

    You as a parent probably recognize that every chance your child takes to articulate her (or his) sense of incapicitation is the right one, to spell out a symptom in their own words, go over how it was versus how it is, and on purpose not to try to line up their experience with the described symptoms in the handbook for their label, but purposely instead go beyond all conformity to what they are supposed to know and feel. They get better directly from getting to what might be right and definitely is or isn’t better about now versus yesterday. You can keep things emotionally validated for them and worth feeling gratitude for. You can take credit for keeping this alternative channel open and lending all survivors encouragement by sharing your views on recovery process.

    Finally, for myself-fifteen years of compliance wasn’t enough to see how the problem has very little to do with mere access to services in this country…. The fifteen years of noncompliance and rejection of the professionals’ overall aims was absolutely necessary. Thanks for writing so carefully about your child’s situation, Sa.

  • Seth – You’re jumping to conclusions and misconstruing my actual position. Also, you seem to think that I took myself for squaring off with you and disagreeing that Szasz was censored like crazy and gets misrepresented right up to today, and I’m not disagreeing. In addition, I think there is only as much connection between Epicurus and Szasz as someone wants to see for their own purposes, and no more. And I don’t know what would have led Michael to totally different critiques.

    I don’t think Szasz was writing philosophy, I think it was Dr. F’s technique of suggesting a juxtaposition for bringing these two diverse realms of discourse in under one heading for comparison of substance rather than form. Philosophy amidst the intellectual tradition and everyman’s philosophy are continuous but not coextenxive, I think. I enjoyed the compact history lesson on Epicurus, but didn’t take it as an apt way of championing Thomas Szasz in light of the fact that to develop the context of the showdown between opposing views about psychiatry at the conference podium meant saying a bit more that is particular to Szasz. That required giving more character to the way freedom worked as a theme in his writing and thought, I said. Still, Dr. F. admirably seems to want to be present in the mode of eulogy for Thomas Szasz, wouldn’t you say?

    As far as getting abstract, the only way I feel that has to happen concerns Dr. F.’s thesis statement, which is rather refined, and is one that he then doesn’t systematically defend to convincing effect since he is busy making the colloquial treatment of Szasz’z ideas sound like something that the fully credentialed members of his audience were inherently above. If there’s too much optimism in his efforts, that’s where it is.

    I know something of the history of Szasz’s reception by his opponents and understand the counterhistory that you reel off and don’t doubt it.
    But if we don’t look at what Dr. Fontaine declares as his justification for his views, then we’re simply dismissive.

    You know how some supposed advocates of survivor rights try to dispel our natural belief that D.r Szasz was a caring soul? Well, when I read him, starting right off with The Myth of Mental Illness I see that he knows my situation front to back. Then, to his dying day he shone the spotlight on the way mainstream professionals are derisive of the mental capacity of their clients. Far from concerning themselves to assist us with our problems in living, their focus is on parading their superior intents and purposes before government power-brokers and the public at large and keeping labels working like dogtags. Don’t you think that’s what we’ve had enough of?

    Michael’s writing projects are at worst benign in that regard but I think he means to have some pro-active effects and use his perceived authority to inspire other perceived authorities to think and act self-critically. Nonetheless, maybe his actual efforts are too suggestive that being benign about human rights in the survivor debate isn’t one more face of social injustice–which it surely is. Indeed, however, I enjoyed the article and the chance to–exactly, Seth–“complain”.

  • Hi Seth, As ever, kindness inevitably creeps in every available chink in your remarks after distinguishing your viewpoint along certain lines of difference to the one that is the putative object of your reply. Now, I just am seeing your post today. Not because of very profound distress, but because of enough of it, I take breaks from all sorts of the instantaneous life the Internet keeps available for us. And this change of seasons happens to coincide for me with another time of coming back to the portals. Since you bothered to submit my comment to the litmus test of your own perspective, I receive the pleasure of re-stating my case in double, because , as we see, Michael still adds to the thread. So, it’s to the point of clarifying some comments for the spotlight that puts on his original contributions… as he might benefit from eavesdropping. (I was deeply moved, too, Seth, by your article on “Gloria” and have wanted to see your continued updates to your advocacy position.)

    So, to start out, I only reread the article and your comment, and not anymore of the thread a second time and not my own remarks yet. But I will before pressing the post comment button, so that my answer’s careful enough– since it’s been awhile. Maybe my statements suggested that I thought Michael was reducing Szasz’s views to an idee fixe on Freedom, but that wasn’t how I was actually coming at it. Rather it was from the other direction, that given Szasz’s bibliography and various smatterings of tastes and predelictions, you wouldn’t automatically derive Freedom as the Prime Mover of his (little “p”) philosophy. In that observation was my excuse for pointing out the very rarefied atmosphere surrounding Michael’s discussion of Dr. Szasz’s take on “freedom”. Michael seemed to want the highest generic freedom, or some version assumed from a neutral viewpoint to serve where he was referencing Thomas Szasz in particular.He practically approached it like it was a thetic absolute, freedom as abstractly and absolutely as it could be made to order, not just for free will discussions, but for discussions of political substance between worthy pundits, whether liberal or conservative, at their level and in the context of such purposes, which more often than not bear no reference to survivor issues. If you talk at that level you keep the jingoists and new-agers from heckling, let’s say. But you don’t remind the APA how to think Szasz through.

    At any rate, my own take on Michaels’ efforts appreciate his scholastic intents fully. My first motivation is to approach this essay as a writing topic; secondly, to understand it as a convocation between a liberal academic and an anti-responsibility coalition in full regalia. If you want to keep at the ideas in the piece for another go-round, Seth, I subscribed this time. In that regard, it would be important, prior to talking about the propriety or correctness of the political drift of the language and any of its allusions to survivor issues, to acknowledge the thesis: that in tying coercive practices to the essential qualities of the early to late early modern mad-doctoring efforts Szasz’s aims at reform get bogged down.

    I think rather that it worked just as Hannah Pickard noted here–

    http://www.hannapickard.com/uploads/3/1/5/5/31550141/broome-chapter_4.pdf

    –that Szasz got too convoluted and verbose sometimes. But then let’s also not forget Dr. Joanna Moncrieff for seconding Szasz on this site.
    Thanks for your well thought out response, Seth.
    *****
    To recap: My impression from getting acquainted with Szasz and Szaszianism in a less then deliberate way left me with the very definite impression that Szasz’z freedom meant what it means to common sense as for most people that serves both as their philosophy of practical reason and their guidelines topsychology. Szasz honors common sense plus delivers refinements of it that can take the name of philosophical statement, no matter that it’s not Philosphical “outright”. Specifically, where Szasz left me and where I have left my reading of him to date is: freedom works to provide the ultimate foundation for incentives toward responsibility. You know that what you do, you do, and that if you see that it turns out for the good, and the good is what you get. You want more of it and deserve the opportunity to own it gain the respect of your peers. You very appropriately want to get more of what you can by your own honest efforts. Conversely, what your failures mean are what they stand for as learning opportunities in the fullest sense of the wored. Or, if they are moral failures, then they serve as cues for how others will and should make you stand to account.

    I know it’s obvious as the breakdown of libertarian choice in everyday terms, but that ‘s not a good enough reason to leave it tacit for a group like the APA, who loves to believe it engages views in rigorous manner before going ahead and issuing the right idea from its central orifice.

  • Dr. Berezin – Way to draw fire. Most of us know here know that David Healy just stops and calls this kind of support for the ADHD label and drugging the effects of parents getting brainwashed. Old-fashioned shock doctor that he is, he’s still good for making that point.

    I understand that you know about the conception of disease and psychopathology and much of the subtlety of talking about the differences of real and existent and constructed and combinations of these descriptive predicates. Most people don’t konw what it means to “construct” and just assume the picture of some thing as what makes for a disease, and I know that you realize that. Only a few would understand that bonafide medical conditions are also not immune to being re-constructed in different terms and being declared inexistent. But it’s so different with psychological problems with no relevant anntomical abnormalities present to explain functional differences, and all sorts of psychsocial factors in play that illuminate all the problems immediately in terms of what is actually known already about how we react to and suffer from various kinds of stress. If you get people up in arms like this about their own mis-reading of what “exists”, it’s a commendable first step here, no doubt about it. If people recognized what sort of elitism it was that is represented in the reductionist fairy tales they re-tell for free, they would cringe. I agree that Steve should start his book, and take a page out of yours for motivation.

  • Jeffrey – Listen, I’m first hearing of your exact story here, and wondered if you had tried getting anywhere with examining DPAFU? For myself, psych drugs and forced treatment scenarios definitely contributed to some already active tendency to depersonalize due to early childhood traumas. Sexual and verbal abuse and manipulation on the one hand and real threats of instant death in traffic accidents on the other. I’m not trying to suggest that you should self-diagnose, and don’t at all believe that the careproviders are onto anything more than survivors can learn for themselves. I’m just saying–you can translate sometimes between the official varieties of symptoms and your own in the specific sense, and then come away with hints for how to adjust.

    I also have movement issues and some disorder of agency along with that cognitive problem. Derealisation, depersonalization, fragmented memories (feeling like they happened to no one in particular, very impersonal), and on top of that identical replications of emergency actions that I took to avoid a serious accident about fifteen years ago. I mean repeated re-plays of my hands and feet working on the controls of my bike. For a long time, I did not know what was going on, but eventually could piece it together. I even get the distorted facial musculature from my chinstrap and muscle spasms from the weight of the helmet on my neck. Maybe there is rhyme and reason underlying your own problems, more than absolutely random nerve firings? Just wondering on your behalf and for myself.

  • Yeah, Fiachra, you make cogent remarks when you say casual things and elegant statements of more complex things, and I’ve come to reflect on the value of social acknowledgement and the efficacy of relationships in the determination of personal change…on account of your thoughts about it, more than once.

  • Madmom – So let’s see about this trip back in time to re-explain. I’ve gotten enough distance from the initial motives to see what I h-o-p-e-d to have said. Whenever something gives me greater chance to hang onto stability, which does tend to be what follows intense flashback episodes, I end up surpised at how little my mind has changed about how bad the services on offer are. But my sense of humor comes back in better condition and my head’s more clear. So…

    My point derives from the libertarian critique of mainstream efforts in both academic and clinical behavioral science, of everything from publication to court testimony. The system is just one grand crying out for permanent entitlement first and foremost, and patients are second in line at best. Really, it is not hard to see that the push of the allied mental health industries is wholly toward the formulation of a medico-therapeutic bureacracy that blurs all distinction between private enterprise and government “aid programs”. Wow, that shows prominently in the work I’ve seen underway in mental health wards and community mental health centers and doctor offices, come to think of it.

    The other idea is that the same people who gave us this failed paradigm are very nearly the ones who will give us the next version. The ethicists today are representatives of their employers and tomorrow they still will be. (And I think that “failed paradigm” has got to suggest “flawed from the outset” and “rotten to the core”, etc.)

    I find myself able to interpret my first post line by line, but it’s not of enough interest in comparison to just expressing myself anew, since now it is easier. Meanwhile, thanks for asking in the first place. It says something nice about your attitude that you’d care to make out the meanings in connection to the intentions for my trying to communicate them!

  • Ms. Watt, Great work here, and most importantly an attitude worth emulating. I learned from an article online years ago that cognitive psychology couldn’t support an ontology for proving its determination–that was by this psychologist …

    http://psych.wisc.edu/faculty-abramson.htm

    Anyway, don’t take me for advocating Freudian approaches, but the news mentioned was like finding money if you know what I mean. And it may be a bit one-sided stated so simply, but Beck does seem as old-fashioned to me as though he missed everything that phenomenology showed about what can and can’t happen to affect persons internally or externally, and then actually receive explanations appropriate to the psychic and the egoic functions of conscious experience.

    I had tried working with two CBT books, one on DPAFU and PTSD, as these cover my presenting symptoms, but I couldn’t get anywhere until I risked a naturalistic experiment–right here, actually. My hyperawareness, and consequently my hypervigilance had been through the roof, to the moon, and back again, for years, and I couldn’t see what cognitive behavioral sins I was committing to keep them so intense. Meanwhile, I almost never felt anything worth talking about besides stress. I had been saddled with the label bipolar and was compliant for fifteen years, but had types of episodes (that I now know were flashbacks of life-threatening events) that the label never explained. Problematically, the mood stabilizers masked the emotional aspect of anything like triggers or the manifestations of derealization and I just got used the the irresistible contemplative moods that we call depersonalization.

    So, what I attempted was play-acting like I was angry with someone who could conveniently stand for a psychiatrist or “the bad guy” according to his style of commenting in the thread. How hasty and not risk-averse is that in this venue? Anyway, anecdotal as it may be, it is historically true that upon doing my best to present some retaliatory spirit, I had immediate reduction in hypersensitization, interpreting this as the release of frustration from always trying to control my reactions. My house fronts a street and many of my life threatening expereinces happened due to to endangerment in traffic beyond my responsibility for causing the wrecks or potential end of life “visions”.

    Anway, CBT then let me learn some things, once the inroad developed to seeing more than bodily cues of emotional life, feeling again, even if it was all pain for awhile. I find undying humor for my personal predicament, which is the most help. The second most help, however, has been counseling. Except for me it was from lawyers.

  • Fiachra, You are always eloquent and concise about your experieince, and it has mattered to me a number of times that you quietly bespoke your conviction in sharing and talking (and meditating) as the way in toward a solution, and out toward the needed change. Nothing at all is amiss in experiencing the absolutely unmitigated sadness (the forlorn aspect) of life. Probably you have very interestingly considered what is the actual right manner of knowing the forlorn recognition of ineluctable doubt about most aspects of the human condition and what is by contrast the distress that goes by the same name as doubt or sadness, but which reveals your unnecessary “personal” contribution to the pattern of suffering. Your words are very easy to respect and to understand and you make your story, as hard as it once became to endure, beautifully accessible and turn the private into the universal. The technical details which Jay will connect with in your comment go a bit over my head, but have the unmistakable ring of truth, and inspire perseverance.

  • Thanks Robert W., for the required reading and the exegesis that spares us the firsthand frustration. I am not actually against psychiatry, although that might seem contradictory to my apparent negativity about how it usually turns out. What is unworkable about it at the theoretical level is just about the whole focus of academic critiques, and, of course, those typically find ways to help the profession adjust at that level the ideal of psychiatry as medicine. But what I know about going wrong happens in hosptials where drudgery and the sharp division of the subjects and the over-seers cancels all the therapeutic pie in the sky intended by “correct diagnosis”, with compliance and lifelong drug maintenance getting seen as the whole and only significant need, and where submissiveness and confessions of ineptitude whenever not acting the part of the good mental patient are the most approved of behaviors, by far. So, whatever happens to the data on these many, many cases of psychosocially caused nervous dysfunctions produces a very contorted version of scientific explanation of “outcomes”, indeed. Thanks for your work and leadership.

  • Daniel, Hi. So, anyway, I keep rereading this since opening my big mouth and saying the big word “moral”. Well, with stress levels coming down I can express myself much better and still have the same gut reaction as the first time, and want to clarify my unintentionally cryptic “messages” from before. Hope you will have time to see the point, as it is meant not only for doing myself the favor….

    To cut to the chase, my original reaction was not more or less than “Some people may not find this as humorous as he thinks…” and that judgment was not isolated from the awareness that you were only trying to be just so funny anyway, and were taking the deathly problems psychiatry faces us with as real and ongoing, and usually unexplicated, nightmares. I mentioned the word “moral” as it might matter to you on account of your education both in psychiatry and psychology as that is also a very real criteria of how diagnoses and interventions are motivated, and also in terms of what seems obvious about normative judgment all around: whether it regards values, aeshtetics, or social norms, that if you want to make an honest judgment call about anything, a second consideration of your first conclusions is what is required.

    You didn’t lose me in this particular delineation of problems that psychiatry introduces, above and beyond any of their patients’ presenting problems in living. I can’t see in your remarks what isn’t true of practices with which my acquaintance is first or secondhand. But as far as your essay represents the voice of frustration–created in tandem by the spirit of your advocacy and the tenacity of the established mindset in favor of no critique for psychiatrists to heed at all– I still believe that what you put on offer is the raw material and that many works to come will articulate the motives behind it and the meanings that endow it.

    In saying thise, my vocabulary and grammar come out so schoolboy rotten, I’m pretty sure, because my first reactions just were intuitions and not dramatically edgy or emotionally filled out narrative thinking throughs. There is probably enough here about your whole perspective to keep me re-visiting to make sure that I have accounted for all the many things I saw done wrong in handling cases, since psychiatry done well is something very rare in my personal experience with it.

  • Michael – Listen, you didn’t really go anywhere with this idea that Thomas Szasz skewed his overal critique with one ceaseless beating of the dead horse of freedom. From my reading of Szasz to date, his work includes emphasis on the abrogation of civil rights more determinedly than anyone who tries to compete in the world of ideas regarding mental health, but it wasn’t the centerpiece of most of those books, and perhaps just was only in Insanity: the Idea and its Consequences and Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry. I picked the titles that mattered to me, among them The Meaning of Mind, The Myth of Psychotherapy, Schizophrenia. Only someone coming to read him who is already offended by the idea of protecting legal rights equally would find in those books that the undergirding sine qua non is his belief in personal liberty stood out above and beyond all else to make his message rest on the victory or defeat of that concept. There was an awful lot of different kinds of meat on the bones of his arguments, even if the bones were constituted by unflinching belief in freedom and dignity.

    Similarly, Szasz never aimed at freedom simpliciter–like Sartre, for instance, does in an entirely philosphical vein. For Szasz, freedom referred to self-interest. Psychiatrists haven’t got to earn there clientele while they have the means to create lifelong extra-judicial authority through their entitlement as social control agents. That’s the relevant aspect of the freedom discussion for the APA and such supporters as they have. Of course, I want my freedom, too. How is it good enough to make me rely for my legal rights on the conscience of individual clinicians and leave their authority unquestioned? The notion that the issue of psychiatrists refusing to release patients has most to do with either violence or inability of the patient to care for himself is hyper-proclaimed. What goes on most often is that psychiatrists want you to thank them or want your “friends and family” to see who’s boss, so that they will know who to call when they tire of you.

  • Mr. Kelly, I feel confident that the title of your article will mostly help Robert Whitaker advance his views, since those who read between the lines will see that you misconstrue his purposes in keeping at his journalistic attack on dangerous prescription drug use and abuse. But you have heard enough on that from some good commenters already. You bring up all sorts of things that need remembered, but I wonder if you recall that we are waiting to see if Whitaker decides to proclaim that psychiatry is ideology. Since it looks like the abrogation of civil rights is a principle of their service model, and that they employ science to the ends that serve it, it seems like the fairer criticism is that he’s leaving us all with one foot on the platform and one foot on the train. I think that he gets the drug problem and the plight of sufferers just right, but that the people who want to feather their nests as types of authoritative commentators on how the issues should get discussed let you off to easy on the legal conundrum that psychiatry creates and maintains for us all–in its present form.

  • Sandy, I’m not sure what the current paradigm would do without the allied mental health industry’s bold tradition of declaring war on stigma, while guaranteeing that it takes effect, tying forced treatment protocols to labels, rubbing it in with the abrogation of civil rights. I can’t think how they would support their mission of getting people to stop blaming the victim when their focus is on escaping criticism for doing it themselves. But it is a nice fantasy that no one should get blame directed at them for the inconveniences associated with “needed care”.

  • Frank, You’re right on and clear… it’s the positive thinking patrol out to protect diversity, again. And let’s all never-mind about the behavioral healthcare system of entitlement, the powers to detain and discredit, the complete lack of intelligent conversation within hospital walls on what is medicine versus what is sociopolitical fate, and the passive aggression of the politically correct Left.

  • Hey Hermes, I think I can relate to your statement about how you were (naturally) worse in 1998 than in 2010, which makes sense, since you had learned a thing or two about how to cope. It looks like the nature of our run-ins with our respective psychiatric establishments has a number parallels. I am also doing lots better now, but since I question them more, my files say I’m worse. The only way I am worse than ten or twenty ot thirty years ago, and not the best since ever seeking help, is how the behavioral healthcare industry has misinformed, traumatized, and dehumanized me as just another case.

  • Mistake in my big opening sentence… help editor, help….

    I do of course mean turning the volume on full blast (like Torrey and Nardo and Healy) that psychiatry just is doctoring, and turning it all the way down on the human relations capacity, upon which psychiatric diagnosis pivots. As in such evasions as saying that its just purely sympathy to practice by affirming sick-talk with people who want to call themselves ill (like Vivek Datta) and like to think they can get some supposed chemical imbalance treated, when they are in fact unhappy.

  • Dr. Berezin, I am sure that you deplore the fact that all the hype for turning up the volume on psychiatry as medical investigation and turning the volume off on psychiatry as medicine just is what keeps the dollars pouring into research projects having little to do with treatments that will change lives as they could be changed by better attention to individual needs. Tricky research protocols also guarantee that psychiatrists have constant scientific-sounding messages for the press and their various pressure groups that offer “peer support”. So that there never has to be a conversation about over-diagnoses and the reluctance to walk through careful discussions of trauma, for instance. Or about whether and when and how (and how knowingly) American psychiatry has done more harm than good for patients.

    Psychiatry hides behind modern science to avoid any distraction from their focus on “major mental illnesses”, through pre-emption of “dangerous thoughts and behavior” by forced treatment modalities, and so never will have to answer for its entitlement as a real state monopoly with extra-judicial authority for bringing in the business and covering up “mistakes”…until it’s made to answer.

  • Also, while here, I want to comment on your article. I actually did not do that in my original comment, which is why it might have seemed unjustly glib. But in point of fact, although the article impressed my with its friendly tone, and I didn’t give a second thought to its uncertain focus until you and the first couple of respondents hashed it out in the thread, I was overwhelmed by the range of considerations that come into play for so much as approaching the issue and getting the questions right in rough outline. My action was to go to this Szaszian who I personally feel safe in relying on. I should have said “the topic is prone to sidetrack”, because in fact I was thinking of the wider public debate in making that remark, and not your discussion exactly. Those thoughts in that paragraph just are the simple touchstones I call to mind when deciding to decide much of anything about this failure to provide good, cautious, well-explained services for mental health. That said, I believe that my point about why it sidetracks bears on your presentation, while what it doesn’t do is describe it.

    Additionally, whatever underlying brain processes there are, most people alive will never get medically diagnosed and medically treated for medically identifiable disorders, and even the designer drugs won’t prove to do that unless by magic they correct some underlying condition and restore functional capacity. But there’s no way, not in the brain. And it’s a fact that mental illness is a myth before getting to such points in a discussion as involves neurotransitters, anyway. The criteria have to remain linguistic and behavioral, and first and foremost experiential.

    Also, please watch out for the slippery slope with the free will debate. This is a medical model fantasy and huge marketing gimmick to pretend that psychiatrists know what someone has intended when they typically haven’t investigated the situation: their favorite mode of influence is to rule by decree. There is a world of difference between “responsibility without blame” and the hokey justifications of the insanity defense, since it is used, like every other measure in doctors’ control, to shore up their entitlement and publicize their authority in legislating good sense, certainly more often than it is needed to excuse an innocent person. Szasz is right, here, too–he was just a bad writer…

    http://www.szasz.com/1senseless.pdf

  • Jill, I looked back here to see what I thought after reading this great article that I can’t believe you’d want to miss. The same author as I linked to, but printed in a legal journal:

    http://www.ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/full.pdf

    For the mental health side, the authors focus on “disorders of agency” and specify that “Core diagnostic symptoms of such disorders include actions and omissions that are criminally or morally wrong. But evidence-based treatment for these conditions typically depends on clinicians adopting a stance towards patients of ‘responsibility without blame’.” They talk over the (old and revamped) justice model and evaluate it alongside discussion of the (not totally gone) rehabilitation model that envisioned character change as the purpose of everything up to and beyond sentencing. Those are authors Nicola Lacey and Hannah Pickard working in U.K. But the discussion is in the most general terms and applies to issues of criminal responsibility and theories of punishment for any system of law and government that works from record to result in light of a constitution, I’m sure. Aside from that type of concern, and what Duane says, I would strongly suggest that the most relevant part of Szasz’z argument to this problem is that psychiatry doesn’t have to earn its customer base in a competitive environment, that most of behavioral healthcare relies directly on entitlement to the legal right to detain, and that almost all of it relies indirectly on the hospitals being places that stand in for “holding the disorderly people” and absolutely really and truly they involve themselves in wholly illegal pre-emptive detentions. These are just too numerous and too favored by communities and relatives of inmates to be protested effectively, much less challenged in court on a regular basis. It’s a joke.

  • Right, Hermes – I get you on the mental defective pronouncements. My thinking about the Lewontin book is that it takes the mystery out of worrying that you deserve such reputation yourself. I always look for that: can I stop believing the justification for how I lost my place socially? In other words, the facts that genetics can’t produce anything close to “blueprints for organisms”, that we don’t need it to, and that the “noise” of random differences in chemical interactions determine plenty, are as much facts about the stuff we are made of as are our inherited traits. You can re-direct your attention from the fatal flaws that justify all the pressure to medicate and to exclude you from everyday events. If you get that concept thoroughly already, then this book would serve more as clarification on how to interpret the basics of the science for you.

    Also, I mean for my reading to take in changes in definitions of mental illness over time. For instance, Will Hall just blogged about melancholia and said it was the old name for depression. But this might not be exactly so. People change the idea of what particular things make for the unwanted companion and the unhelpful response from one historical circumstance to another. It’s the same for most people’s purposes, of course. But my concern emanates from and extends back to how we limit talking about things because of supposedly identifying some discrete disorder.

    By way of example, I know my condition includes very high stress and hyperarousal. I know of traumas that at the time did not give a clue that I’d get like this. But I don’t have a big, weepy story to tell a therapist, which really seems to be something they want. The point I’m driving at, is that it would work perfectly well for me to talk about moodstates, but this is too heavily de-emphasized. Similarly, I can’t think of who couldn’t talk about stress for mental problems. So, the bottom line is that I don’t see anyone in the business having to prove that hospitalization does some good because they have pressure to prove their case. You get no original information there, and everyone is thought to have one of two disorders. Either Not Taking Your Medicine Disorder or Self-Medication with Controlled Substances Disorder. Why can’t doctors flip the pages and try new approaches or admit confusion, ignorance, and error. I guess it would kill them. Why can’t psychologists acknowledge using psychiatry to shield themselves from harder cases? Too honest, they’d die.

    Nothing ever made me believe anything had changed about the world just because my perceptions changed. But in a sense, I began to experience revulsion toward my life and noticed some reasons for disregarding the typical materialistic goals on account of the meaning to me of the assault on my senses and the commonly seen emotional frenzies of crowds and “serious” people that I have to put up with in times of calm and emergency alike. That and all the rejection and the naive equating of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment with medical help. Here in this backwater of wasted ideals.

    BTW, nothing like paranoid intentions seems to be hanging you up, either. If they ever did and were too intense or of the wrong kind to serve any good purpose, that is for you to say, very much completely I think. You’re liable to encourage by your example, but be sure to get the frustration out when you need to. Talk to you down the road.

  • Hi Dr. Wallace, It seems like looking at your article two days ago led me to read this today–

    http://edge.org/conversation/parallel-memories-putting-emotions-back-into-the-brain

    The link had been sitting awhile on my favorites; still, when I read it, my understanding developed in light of your point about labels. That emotional experiences aren’t different in type, but getting pigeon-holed as diseased and defective is different from working out your feelings. Anyway, what I was brought to consider here was LeDoux’s neglect of any mention of the major mental illnesses, although he roundly includes all the basics of traumagenic models. The plus side to this originates with the reader who goes on believing in a universality of emotional and cognitive varieties of lived experience, seeing people as people and problems as problems, and not inventing mental illness to obscure the perception of either or how the relations in which they stand. The negative side is, the prominence of the image of mental illnesses and the marketing and judicating that goes on in their names, means that he would not be able to state his case precisely the same way if he were to include these issues. However much he advances his readers’ knowledge, they still have to believe in the whole separate modes of being human argument that psychiatry promises to handle in order to protect the normal from the insane, unless they have researched the alternative critical views. What I’m thinking could be said better, and the key point to me is that you can’t begin to explain cognition and emotion, much less waking, sleeping, and dreams, if you isolate or omit from your considerations the fact the extremes psychiatry sets out to study find a place in your overall explanation. A place entirely visible from the surface. I liked getting the information, but it settles nothing the problems of managing problems that psychologists shy away from or that neurologists avoid, that involves the nazi-tattoo of a label. Because of your fresh reminder of the odious effect of that consequence, I could keep facing the truth of how out of the way authentic protest against psychiatric oppression really is.

  • Hey Hermes– I was trying to catch up with you to recommend a book, if you hadn’t read it and especially if it’s found in Finnish translation. Richard Lewontin’s “The Triple Helix”. A word about it: it’s short and discusses dogma and reality in biology in terms of the gene-organism-environment relation. I started with Lewontin’s collaborative effort “Not in our Genes”, but it is not very readable. Peter Breggin cited it in Toxic Psychiatry and it’s formatted as a clarion call to socialistic economics and medicine. The negative reviews I looked at after losing motivation were credibly negative, and were not so because of anti-Marxist ideology. Now, this individually written book “The Triple Helix” gave me a framework for digesting claims about genetic predispositions and good hints about how to approach articles on that, although it is directly intended for revealing the state of scientific challenge today and concomitant attitudes within the fields of research that only occasionally overlap with behavioral science. (Although they are vigorously milked, aren’t they? MIA blogger Jay Joseph posts about these findings in nice, helpful ways.) The language of molecular and evolutionary genetics is introduced for the general reader in Lewontin’s book, but the overall message targets specialists.

    Also, I have read most of the thread here, and want to tip you off that Lewontin employs the terms “mental illness” and “schizophrenia” as though possible disease models are viable for these non-beings. He doesn’t elaborate.

    Also, I appreciate your explanations of the neural effects of drugs, and wanted to show you my focus in the science of psychiatry. To me, the drugging comes in after the fact as part of what you live with in handling the problem in living, and ideally enters your life only how you want to involve yourself with it. The claim that maintenance on antipsychotics saves lives is undemonstrated hyperbole to me, dangerous and misleading. So I tend to focus on the individuation of what seems like brain dysfunction as I’m living with it or might prepare for a worsening of it and on the differentiation of symptoms, mainly to include all and only what reflects my symptomatology, describing what I face in accurate, non-compliant, anti-psychobabble terms. After all, talking about one disorder being mistaken for another usually misses the point that there is no great resemblance between paradigm cases of “mental illnesses and disorders” and paradigmatic examples of medically identified and treatable conditions. Whenever someone says “that disorder” or “this mental illness” who hasn’t discussed the myth of it, I stay on the lookout for goobledygook and Stockholm syndrome and double-talk. With Lewontin, the mention and the thought behind it happen in passing and don’t detract so much as leave unexplored what is up with dogma for psychiatric survivors to understand beyond the general distortions he discusses at the level of causal genetic theory and modelling.

    That said, let me say that I look forward to catching up with you in the future and normally don’t subscribe to notifications, but try to wrap up my end of things and make sure I haven’t left anything hanging that deserved acknowledgement. The kinds of science I try to look at is this– http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/72/4/530.full — then in addition I read philsophical critiques — For instance, this chick has it all going on with her work in-hospital as a philosopher– http://www.hannapickard.com/papers.html

    Thanks to Nancy R., too, for all her hard work and systematic attention to details and nuances, and for keeping her esprit d’corps.

  • Bob – Our drug laws have the unhappy effect of worsening the quality of widely publicized information about anything that is or gets suggested to be immoral or simply wanton, for no reason, for recreation, for erotic enhancement, don’t you think? That makes a complicated analysis due for the prevailing attitudes, since these well-meaning moralists want not to examine the other side of their judgmental behavior when it comes to how prohibitionistic motivations retard progress in the development of treatment programs and prevention itself. But as hard as the analysis becomes once it has to take on the issue of skewed perceptions, the data for it exists everywhere you look.

    Relatedly, the massive and undiscussed entitlement of behavioral healthcare workers, whose employment benefits include not having to answer to the economic forces that confront those without state mandates, always able to rely on the court ordered treatments to give the profession their name and influence instead of earning it from proven results, has to factor into the reduction in the quality of information on mental disorders, both as it is collected and interpreted. I’d like to see the allied mental health industries having to fight for their respect before the law much more and making their commitments to patient advocacy as explicitly revealed as they do their backing of each other and the status quo in legal matters, as well as in standards of labelling for anyone whose ideas differ from theirs.

  • B – I was sorry about leaving the discussion on an old article where it ended up, because of not recognizing that the comment that ws the subject of my attack was yours, and because of taking it in directions that were inaccurate considering what your original intention was in posting. I was guessing but want to correct my statement. Maybe you’ll look back?

    https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/01/people-use-drugs-dont-become-addicts-thats-important/

    In addition, on this post, your instincts jibe precisely with the analysis of a very admirable civil libertarian journalist. See here…

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/04/16/will-wilkinson/quest-scientific-politics-happiness

    Take care, t.-v.

  • Bunny– Did you know that Ken Kesey actually got the most people to turn on? Also, although my son stole the book in one of numerous spates of juvenile delinquency, I had authoritative comparitive commentary on four expermental psych drugs from sixites research in the area. Four drugs were examined, two with qualified quasi-praise, in the vein of “time for more research”. Two were reviewed in the same depth and at the same length, and dismissed with the statement that “people who were given these substances have brain damage” (my paraphrase from memory). One of these compounds was ecstasy. It seems funny that the drug was reintroduced without some revelation of its history. What’s the difference? Lower doses? Different chemistry?

  • Hi B – In case you don’t get updates, why don’t you re-visit the article about Most People Who Use Drugs Don’t Get Addicted–and Why That’s Important? I understand your perspective and didn’t see that it was you there. There are interesting things left to say.

    You have rational concerns about abusive treatment, and care about opening your mind.
    Just keep opening it and things.

  • Thanks, Psychedelic Frontier: Indeed, what’s a bad trip? If you’re unhappy with the results of an experience, you’re unhappy with your mind. But don’t take drugs in ignorance and don’t give yourself good reason for disliking your mind by giving yourself brain damage. For instance, avoid flooding your skull with dopamine. Above all, don’t put yourself in the position of getting forced to take drugs if you can help it.

  • B – I worried about appearing to take a pot shot at someone who was not a native English speaker, but risked it in order to challenge the Just Say No message in case it was from someone who might have just happened upon the site here or was looking to distract and silence the rebels. I couldn’t see that it was someone–that it was you– who already presents their views and who could be addressed in more friendly terms. That is because the the new format sometimes hides usernames completely, at least for my browser.

    Nevertheless, let’s take a second look here before I go into the explanation I was prepared to make for sounding off in the tone of rebuke, if it’s OK with you. I’ve gotten a chance to look here and there (and downloaded the first two papers which seemed most interesting and involve this argument) about what’s dangerous and what’s natural and who’s right on the opium question. I have my nose in a book ten hours a day and actually just logged on because of not wanting to forget to explain myself appropriately to whoever was espousing abstinence, which is often the smart personal choice.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/40/15487.full

    http://curleylab.psych.columbia.edu/docs/curleymu.pdf

    http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/65/4/1257.full

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070387/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_receptor

    Anyway, think about it: none of these basically mainstream publications carry the zero tolerance implication that leads to defining opiate receptor stimulation as artificial. They’re all reliably anti-drug abuse, maybe even allies of the War on Drugs, as hateful and stupid as that is, but they don’t try to spin the story so that narcs can say that ingesting opiates leads to an artificial high. I think they would if they could, don’t you? Are you sure about your source for the idea of no evolutionary connection to opiates in nature as to how we developed these receptor sites? Maybe it’s a competing hypothesis…. t-v.

  • Madmom – That’s the right way to put that, that my logic is something else to follow. Sorry, as mainly it is not reflective of good communication, but is shorthand for how I would think it over in the ideal thinking state: but I can explain, except I want to read the thread and go back to to reread Jill Littrel’s last post which is in many ways related. There, too, I was typing out what I myself thought helped me to keep the ideas together, alluding to the difficulty and posting a link to British female philospher who I rely on for constructive critique of psychiatry. The asylum vs. jail debate is farther from my own material purposes in life than the hospital, which I consider most unfortunately unusable for my own good, but which is where my lived experience comes from for whatever I can do to understand the views under discussion. Both Dr. Steingard and Dr. Littrell constantly make extensive revisions of their version of needed reforms and are each sharp in their own way and I don’t want to add an explanation of the logic of this flurry of doubts and concerns of mine without making sure I get my ideas clear. Especially since your interest is expressed on behalf of your daughter and since the moderator has to interpret the verbiage with the same problem in doing so as I left you.

    Thanks for asking, and I’ll get to it. For starters, I presume that we are talking about reforms for the “failed paradigm” of behavioral healthcare, though, if that helps in the immediate moment. Also, I wanted to recommend a fine book to you that I just started and that I believe you would not want to wait on yourself, called “Imagining Robert” by Jay Neugeboren. He’s not at all square and lives as a writer; the story regards his fraternal relationship to his brother as he has gone through treatment for schizophrenic overwhelm. Neugeboren brings all the right questions to the table even when he’s too kind and encouraged by NAMI and MHA and those organizations or when he’s not putting quotation marks around Mental Illness and so on.

  • OK, so– Yes, psychiatry did it. The mainstream won’t act against its immediate judgment of its own best interests. Very specifically I mean that however collegiate the various groups have to be, who get their credentials to have this perceived and real authority, in order to leave no question of substance about where there loyalties lie, that is the prime objective and it shows.

    But all these terribly intricate problems are not part of my material purposes for earning my living. Positive strategies at this point seem like the joke they are guaranteed to be faced with the enormity of the problem. But if everyone got due process and could only be held against their will according to it, and that means in jails not psychiatric facilities, we’d have half the problem to deal with. The propaganda and stupidity of the hailing of revolutions in psychiatry as a way to get the public on board, that and the sum total of inconsitent messages we are told “help fight stigma” but really don’t–that also would be halved if the coercion was both made explicit as the guiding purpose of evaluations in the first place, and then limited by separating the proven offenders from the difficult companions on purpose. These are ethicists you say?

  • Rossa– That’s a big deal, the drama suggestion. But you have to attach all the credit to the individuals relating like human beings, and (as you know) not try seeing hope for hospital psychiatry because of this rare good deed.

    Let me say that I don’t believe in anything supernatural at all, but that as far as mental illnesses or disorders and spirit possession mean anything, they are on the same footing in my eyes as answering to beliefs and not to perceived entities.

    As far as how far the modern hospital is from objective, rational, and palliative, here’s a lesson. Once during a voluntary admission, an OT worker solicited our ideas for the sessions she offered. I suggested light aerobics. She was enthusiastic and so were most of us looking forward to something besides doing crafts. But when the next day rolled around she informed me that the doctor said that I can’t join the group since I have to ask permission to do exercises, the first I’d heard of it–of course. So I started doing some anyway outside my room and was warned with whatever nonsense was “OK” for them to discipline and punish me with. I protested that it was part of my religion to do these exercises, obviously just for something to say. I was allowed to continue in an isolation room with a watcher.

    If there’s a difference between shamans and psychiatrists, I bet it is that shamans don’t have to get their way about everything and get endorsed for their efforts to lord it over you. I mean they could, nothing’s stopping them from trying but themselves, but with psychiatrists it is a given.

  • In the same vein as your note of caution, though, I agree that very little leeway should be counted on if you try to bend the rules in life like everybody else, once YOU are stuck forever with the undying need of psychiatrists to take you under their wing and define your life’s meaning.

  • Hey B…, I’ve been shot up but it isn’t a freaky experience to me, just a stupid one like all the others you pay for in “hospitals”. Also, I don’t mean to emphasize defiance, although it gets thought of if you so much as doubt or wonder aloud about the treatment you “obtain”. In fact, in order not to appear dense, I always have found that a lot of seeming interested and grateful were necessary in locked wards or the attendants’ confidence in themselves broke down and their egos took over in collective fashion.

    I don’t think the immediate future will reveal me back in any mainstream treatment, and I’ve got some record of success now working on regulating my emotions and dealing with flashbacks, and defensive and aggressive reactions my own terms. So I should have claimed that I would only talk about what I believed valid and helpful to talk about, but that includes what non-help labels and abrogations of civil rights are.

    In the same vein,

  • Stephen, FYI, I wasn’t saying consumer as a buzzword, just to distinguish the limitations of my experience, having only literally been a consumer of services and participant in typical support groups. I have never exactly been memorably screamed at or shouted down. But I have yet to obtain actual help in any hospital setting. If it happens in the future that someone pulls a dirty trick on me, and makes the doctors and other staff feel important for keeping me under observation, I won’t be talking except to tell them what frauds and dimwits they are. If it’s someone nice, my idea would be to stick to letting them know that their system is zero benefit to me.

  • Witch, what you’re focusing on here, here’s what gets me about it.

    If someone in a hospital had ever tried to get inside my head, it would have been many magnitudes better in there. Almost invariably, the real thing that happened was that they would report what was going on in my head without asking me or looking one fraction of a second, the tiniest bit skeptically, at possibilities beyond the worthless label.

    Absolutely unexceptionably, I met no one who validated re-thinking a diagnosis or re-structuring it to include actual effects on the personality of trauma and abuse, in and of themselves, except that that also served to justify the existing treatment plan and make compliance even more important. With all these people, as best I could tell, the only right new diagnosis was (and most likely always is and just will be) a worse one.

  • I recognize that your reply here mostly addresses academic’s suggestion of narrowness (maybe of circularity, too?) in your analysis. But I appreciated all the clarifications you offered. The principle meaning of my comment is that if you’re planning to stick to native rights perspectives, then I’m not going to be above a few cynical remarks. Of course, I think that the shelving of native rights issues is the other kind of bad, nomothetic cynicism that is expressive of bad faith.

  • I was meaning to add that it is very rare to find materialism and determinism questioned, especially and increasingly, here. This virtual silence is most definitely an aspect of patriarchy and the allegiance of the tenured classes to every form of establishmentarianism and cult of authority. Obviously, I’m pessimistic about freedom of the press as the main bastion of criticism that will always set everything right.

  • John, hi– One quick note of feedback…. Materialism proper, and scientific materialism itself both tend toward an oversimplistic reductivism, an ignorant attitude that prevails in endless transformations for accomodating the infinite range of facts that would otherwise militate against this “physicalism”. But, especially in academia and most professions in America, this doctrine of our intelligentsia-that-isn’t-one actually underwrites major corporate abuses of power, forcing the Supreme court into extreme second place as the total ally of multinationalism.

    An exception that comes quickly to mind in a very explicit way on this site is the way that anti-externalism and anti-reductionism informs the attitude of psychologist Tim Carey. He argues against the traditional theoretical dualism for creating an absolute distinction against stimulus and response, pointing out that the response determines (by picking out the relation) as surely as happens the other way around. Thus, the self, subject, or organism remains central to the analsis. This works hand in hand with his policy of giving the reins to clients in establishing schedules and other priorities for their treatment plans.

    The evil that corporations do seems little more than an expression of what Dr. Szasz called the West’s War on Responsibility, epitomized by psychiatric manipulation of law in the insanity defense and interconnectedly by the academic championing of determinism and every type of paternalistic and mechanistic solution to the problem of freedom. Anyway, you may want to put that in your pipe and smoke it, too, as they say.

    It is very rare to find this

  • You’re more than welcome. Hope it pays and you like it. I had reason to look at it, as I said, but followed it up sooner rather than later because of having noted your swearing by the Buddhistic methods. This series is the context for that sort of thing that reaches me best. Like most serious druggies, I’ve read what I have that’s religious because of Huxley and because of Leary and Alpert discovering the East. But this sober look at faith and visionary pursuits gets it for me now.

  • Sometimes factual discussions of human experience in general seem to really help, although you have to shape your own attitude of such basic informationin order to create the therapeutic edge for yourself. But just relying on literature specific to the case of one or another form of distress, implicating psychiatric perspectives (like 100% of psychology unless explicitly stated otherwise), gets eventually far too narrow to motivate natural desired changes.

    Some very interesting ideas are discussed in this video series, for instance–

    http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/news/buddhism-and-science-video-list/337

    I started watching it because I knew that the talks and discussion converged on the idea of self in modern neuroscience, and in turn on the convergence between some interpretations of self in Buddhism and in a robust scientific understanding of experiencing. That means a nice healthy distance from psychobabble all the way around. There’s also a great brief drumming sequence upfront that sets the tone for the series, and it’s very relaxing and centering. Obviously, I should make a point of finding more such things for myself… but I’m just saying, this one’s particularly informative and broad-minded. Although the presentations can become pretty abstract, the theme of the inquiry is right up our alley as survivors.

  • A big problem with drugs, the worst one, is the forceful push to focus everything on compliance. That just about ruins the availability of services for anyone who would like some help with a noticeable problem with cognition or any type of irresistible and incapacitating mental state. I have never seen anyone in practice go at the drug option like it was an option, and talk about how to cope with the process of adjusting to symptoms. Obviously until you are doing your best with what your exact dysfunctions are or usually are, you can’t settle on the category of diagnosis and t-r-y the drug. The selection should certainly be to your liking and not based on patronizing insistence. There always is a distinction to be drawn between between what your problem is, bio-, psycho-, or social, and How You Handle It. The mainstream doctors are much worse in preparing you to handle drugs than street dealers.

  • Steven, My views develop along the lines of yours, but all of my experience is as a consumer. So I tend to pay attention to details in your comments. I, also, find it important to notice whatever saving graces people working in these screwed up hierarchies still occasionally exhibited. It pays to recall your own humanity, and there is much less inspiration than usual for doing so around the sorts of people who mean to faciltate very liberally mandated detentions “for safety”.

  • Mwilcox- Me too, or I’d not be so glib. I respect the motivation of Dr. B., to look for worth in his trade cartels’s fix-it plans for Joe Average. Meanwhile, the glaring fact that the paperwork on me is treated as gospel and me like a noncompetent nonentity is hardly touched on by “critival psychiatrists”. These sacred files get the evil eye at best. The joke starts with having to recite the terms of your diagnosis to get habeas corpus to apply for you. Next you have to pretend the diagnosis was of something really detected, when in fact there was no such procedure or intention to follow one. Then you have to spend the rest of your life parsing meanings and safely packaging the concept of mis-perceptions when “caregivers” have invariably been happier to help the labels work than to ask for details of experiences and identify coping skills you know to trust. This whole industry isn’t just “corrupt” or “too impersonal” or “lacking precision in its approaches”. It’s thoroughly dehumanized, and unfortunately just the way Thomas Szasz says–by collectivistic-minded self-styled liberals.

  • My sentences might be a liitle loosely put together there. I meant that for an adult reader there is obvious validity to pursuing Castaneda (or scripture, fairy tales, mythology, confessions, metaphysics) as a material source. That questions of authenticity correspond to maenings and purposes and, like them, are not all of one type, as you recognize. Therefore, it hardly pays to condemn all things in terms of a standard of rationality that is merely the scientific viewpoint misapplied. And I meant that this all seems to need drawn together in a scholarly manner like Dr. Torbert appears to do. If your studies lead to musing and contemplation that certainly outranks confirming your previous opinions with every new fact you meet. Castaneda’s lifestyle and habits of personal communication look hokey to me, but he was involving himself with consenting adults, after all. Likewise, that there is evidence of plagiarism and selective citation and corruption of historical truth within his work is a funny thing to take at face value as free information from either academia or the media here. They are simultaneously preventing the same exposure of all their current darlings, but these aren’t risking a neutral attitude toward drugs and psychedelic experiences, or a curious one, and usually avoid effective questioning of materialism or conformity as virtues. If your front serves the status quo, you’re definitely in, here, regardless of your personal “commitment”.

  • Besides identifying and tethering a class of defective individuals to psychiatry, the mainstream goal is to narrow the options for persons in crisis and keep the easy cases easy to get at. The label helps blame the brain, and the doctor who is “needed” happily excuses therapists who don’t want the more iffy listening jobs. Not only is it all about drugs with medico-legal sanction, it’s about letting real work get done instead of all this adjusting and the annoying questions of authenticity and values.

  • Hi Rossa, Spiritual Psychiatric sounds interesting, doesn’t it? I am not trying to get in on the dispute necessarily over Casteneda’s value, but it is literature of some type or other… I wondered if you had heard of The Beauty of the Primitive? That looks like it balances critical and sympathetic takes and goes after questions of context and value and not just narrow lines of debate unrelated to the genuine quest for meaning that may matter for validation of work or debunking it as standard non-fiction. Anyway, musing is often a step up from opining.

  • Dr Berezin, I suppose that the state of your profession’s current contribution to its legacies for tomorrow is at its worst when it comes to stewardship over the vast information resources it accesses through direct encounters with people looking for help and guidance. It is exceedingly rare that cases once botched are ever straightened out even a little. Not only is everyone different, but the information shared in the aggregate is gobbledygook and pretend in the achievement of objectivity.

  • Dr. Hickey, You are getting it all done here for survivors and anyone who isn’t here yet, too. I really appreciate how forthright and comprehensive it is on your part to bring in the Baldessarini et al. reseach article on its own terms. What an inconvenient truth here on MIA that when we stop to notice the good change or occasional upside in a clinical encounter dominated by psychiatry, it is representative of just a fraction of a percent of the everyday reality. The standard fare is lowdown hi-jinx and the spirit of autocracy amid a constant duplicity when “sympathizing” with patients, actions and pronouncements aimed directly at recruiting advocacy of all types for the benefit of psychiatrists themselves.

  • Will, this is an issue at the heart of the facts of the matter of over diagnosis and claiming to fight stigma while supplying its arsenal with all the dogma it needs to draw an absolute distinction between normal and abnormal people. But the concept of psychic abnormality and actions made based on it become senseless immediately when the subject has his own view removed from consideration. The situation of pure observation does not exist, it has to be pretended. Why does the make believe get so serious and pejorative, so oppressive? How in America did choosing for yourself get made deviant, when the fact is that the treatments proffered and legally forced on us are mere trade-offs in terms of the benefits, and just represent the narrowest range of options whenever the treatment plan can center on your label? And the treatment plan just is made to focus on your label, you just are in managed care for observation purposes and not to learn or rediscover your potential. The propaganda is totally sacred to the industry.

  • Hey B – I believe that’s the heart of the topic, what are psychiatrists in it for if they are not able to get interested? I see how very interested they stay in pushing people around and pretending to be providing medicall services for medical conditions medically identified as such. That they then prescribe psychoactive drugs with which they have no firsthand experience then completes the joke that they care about minds.

  • Highly needed attention to jargon that gets used to seem as if mad doctors are constantly doing actual medicine and awesome research. I still wonder just exactly how good mental health is for a term that supposedly means you need some answers and have to vent.

    But, again, Allen Francis–really? Anne Cooke sounds like someone worth meeting. I haven’t seen Francis put survivor issues first or be upfront about them. Psychiatry first and tough luck if you don’t like your label, your forced treatment, second class citizenship.

  • It is very good that a story with this clear language hits the news, still pretty bad how brief and narrowly it sustains the impression of the general public or how the impact on the media doesn’t stop biopsychiatry’s access to free advertising for a minute–and maybe ramps it up.

  • Darby, Thanks for continuing to share your perspective on the meaningful connections for this range of issues. I also wondered if you had ever enjoyed controlled substances where it was as legal as the ground you walk on? We plainly know that expectations and environment can matter as much or more than the intended chemistry. So I doubt that our country has many useful studies of drugs that rankle today’s Carrie Nation’s.

    Similarly, I wonder why behavioral healthcare professionals think they can get accurate reports of experiences when the patient’s aren’t enjoying their liberties equally. Then it is back to the random trial data with dubious absence of context all over again.

  • I think it’s safe to assume that everybody thinks child sexual abuse is one of the worst criminal offenses and that it is sicker than sick. But it seems hardly encouraging that it falls to those who get nothing about freedom and responsibility right to guide the legal process one more time. That only goes well if the actually most passionately committed to social justice have got themselves assigned and they go so far to make the right points about their own professional organizations’ continual abuses of power and zealous protection of their privileged access to the involuntary, paying customers that let them claim their authority and advertise their benevolence in one act. Not that it doesn’t sound like reason to believe something more good than bad will now be possible in this one instance, but if the idea is that abusing kids sexually is a disease, then it’s just time to gag again.

    Likewise, if there’s no attention to psychiatric misinformation and the ceaseless manipulations of their image to put new happy faces on coercion and call it nicer names, then the positive outcome is just part of the shadow play that keeps things the same until we get to hold onto our civil rights to death’s door.

  • Hermes, OK, then, you are not stopped from letting your interests take you anywhere, and my guess is that managing symptoms and eliminating them whatever they maybe is at least a central focus. This certainly is true for me, although what I strictly train myself to notice about what obviously seem like cognitive deficits and not just lack of insight or emotional instability is what is the most scientific assumption about them. What can be proved, what can that proof mean, and what can happen to change something a little. I know it’s nothing like compliance, and nothing you find in the ethics-free zones of mental wards here.

    But it just can’t hurt to boost nutritional values, lower or blunt the worst of your pains by expressing yourself, or try feeling better by medicating yourself sensibly according to your own standards, rather than those of the industry’s. I should get better at each.

    Naturally, I believe it is practical and good and vital to learn relevant historicized perspectives like Foucault’s. It’seems very interesting to whenever survivors or careproviders like Joanna Moncrieff step up on this site to suggest how we can further our personal investigations into the real meaning of “treatment”.

    However, making the science go somewhere helpful for sufferers is rarely the motivation behind the studies and editorial decisions, or so it appears. So only believing in the most basic principles of self-help seems justified. Take responsibility, learn about your problems, don’t believe the hype, and especially look skepticaaly on the claims of inherent benevolence saturating the industry. You know the one…with its autocratic and self-congratulatory standards and policies. At least not here in America the medical and all locked up.

    Good luck there on tackling Discipline and Punish. You make a ton of sense when you say you feel the need to get right into doing this. The same types of realizations hit me all the time. The situation is urgent, very definitely, and constantly made urgent by the gap between stated goals and the ones behavioral healthcare actually pursues (and what they want understood about this difference). I repeat, I mean mostly here in what I know firsthand was almost many times free and willing to keep that way and now is wall to wall the land of credentials and backing when it comes to promoting change.

  • Fiachra, Another of Dr. Moncrieff’so points has been that the myth of the chemical cure gets sustained along with an equally doctrinaire mindset of prohibitionism. Here for sure we see the likeness between genuinely medical and psychiatric approaches. As well it shows psychologists sitting on their hands rather than bolstering the message when particular individuals advocate for the health benefits of alcohol, or insist on attention to helping chronic pain sufferers get all the relief they need by forcing physicians to make careful discrimination between dependence and risk of dependence versus addiction on the other.

    Usually the maverick’s get nowhere with their message and the most protected survivor is the status quo.

    So the game of labels and forced treatment for psychiatric survivors themselves, as far as myths and prohibitions and coercion, gets very deadly and cases off-track dangerously, so that errors in favor of the “conceits” assure the anti-self-medication and over-diagnosis outcomes we know are so pervasive and disempowering. Except to the professionals and the apparatchiks of the justice system and media goon squads who like medical model politics just fine for us.

    “Conceit” is an especially smart word for pointing out the way to reinforce better attitudes in caregivers one by one, a good little tweak to their mantra that “we must follow the treatment plan.” But from the survivor perspective the main issue with disease talk is getting taken out of the loop in your own right for how your future turns out, and the silliness of getting made to say you understand your illness so that your jailers will turn into doctors again(or what it makes you do). To me, it’s as sanctimonious as it is authoritarian, and the most stupid of things about forced treatment for psychologists to leave unchallenged about their city cousins, the doctors.

  • Dr. Steinberg, I want to mention how readable and fair to drug users you are and point to how much that suggests your attitude toward getting questioned or pressed for further moral explanations tends to be an open one. In fact, almost every psychiatrist I have had to meet has not so much as liked getting consulted, their conceit about knowing their patients’ best interests having drifted all the way over to insisting on docile acceptance.

    In other words, my best interest had to be understanding diseases and how dangerous it was to reduce medications, and I saw a lot of this, and almost nothing else. Not just for myself alone, but nearly 100% of requests to continue struggling with personal issues in freedom met with, and I’m sure, still meet with this hypocrisy, no matter that there is no such reason as the doctor will claim to prove dangerous and covert agitation, and that the person has no plan to carry out, no contemplation whatsoever, and no history of actual violence. No, he or she can’t leave because of danger to self or others, since they want to decide for themselves about any little thing.

    This is the most outrageous direction for the conceit about drugs-for-diseases to go in. I’m sure that those who get around to planning violence or self-destruction rely on the conceit exactly at the turning point in their careers when they get to live out the reversal of power. I’m also certain that the corresponding effort to sell diseases for the insanity defense hurts the chances for escaping abusive and inappropriate clinical treatments, or just ineffective and misconceived ones, and stands in our way for escaping stigma as much as the glacial pace of reforms in prescribing practices itself.

  • Hi Peter,

    I know this is an old post linking to an older one, but just got to it and read down to the comment you mentioned by Gina Pera. You say pretty much all the right things, although your language itself is so conventional that I’m not used to it. I appreciate your position statement and your reasons for making your stand. That is, I’m grateful for the effect it has in the world.

    People who take our popular culture and conventional authority figures as the near perfect source for their moral principles, values, and personal style seem to me the craziest and most unwise and harmful in society. But they also are the clear majority in various social environments, wholly dominant in some venues, and whether or not they’ve become unruly, they aren’t the type to maintain order on their own. They tend to believe that social harmony exists naturally and only disappears because of unwelcome intrusions by nonconforming types, troublemakers who are not of their own kind, social rejects.

    Of course many of them like to support the mentally ill and the bold humanitarian approach of modern psychiatry. I can’t understand why these advocates believe that psychiatry needs their help. It continues to do the awesome job it has done throughout history. Even more I can’t see what makes psychiatrists welcome their gracious endorsements–these great public masses and their pundits cheering the doctors on, when they are so busy fighting the stigma that comes from out of nowhere that they must definitely prefer little getaways from how important titration and electroconvulsive shock is. How saintly of them.

    And so on. Anyway, I continue to get encouraged by carefully modulated remarks like yours that remain careful about the distinction between proof and supposition.

  • See a Szaszian who keeps the issues straight, maybe that helps.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23722099

    The topic side tracks because the notion of dangerous behavior is utterly generalized and wedded to the concepts of compliance, restraint, and incompetence. Hannah Pickard always maintains that we are responsible for our actions. And of course Thomas Szasz’s idea isn’t that there are not any physical factors involved in problems in living. They contribute to mental health issues as they do to lovesickness, homesickness…. But you live these problems and they do not exist as an entity that you can excoriate or purge, physically. Psychiatry just is not and cannot be genuinely medically employed.

  • Tres cool and right to the point, fluffybunny. The cause of a mental illness is that someone labels you with it. People who believe that psychiatric problems as biological differences become in and of themselves medically caused are mixed up. Psychiatric problems just are personal differences and there could never be some established standard to approach that would tell us what to be and do.

    I recognize the reality of dysfunction that shows up as problems with emotional regulation and cognition, some way I have gotten that makes me have to work harder or want relief from drugs, but the drug is for me and can’t act on some disorder or illness. At least not on any psychiatric one. Biological definitions, however perfect, won’t make mental illness exist as such. Everyone loves believing that someone who’s busy playing doctor about problems in living is going to become our very own hero.

  • Probably not completely, and needn’t get too worried. But the instances that Dr. Hickey refers to do constitutend the deployment of theoretical explanatory claims. All of your semantic and conceptual concerns are issues of relevance for making our ideas clear, although the specific questionable usages are most problematic for foreign translation, and usually we get the gist despite minor inconsistencies in terminology. As far as thoughts of brain deficits and brain dysfunctions go, this personally doesn’t offend me, but no sort of therapeutic intervention for brains are on offer from psychiatry.

  • Dr. Hickey, There definitely is no problem asking the critic if he’s sure that he hasn’t missed something in his analysis, or misunderstood the character of the perceived target of his speech. Once you get into discussing the nuances in someone’s approach to defining their own perspective, questioning their intentions has to happen. You can’t just assume the best and let the ambiguities ride. Thanks for furthering our opportunities to put the dialogue here to work for ourselves each according to our own best interests.

  • Get over it, Hermes. Mental illness really truly is a myth. It’s not that they just aren’t getting detected yet or are not getting called the right thing. The biological definition is attempted specifically for the game of so-called diagnosis, and the object of that game is to declare you incompetent at “caregivers'” convenience and to force you to believe it and then pay big bucks for the awesome favor.

  • I was thinking that you recognized the possible benefit of hearing what the Peletiers assumed at the outset, what they realized later, and any change of attitude. My initial reaction seems like it had been similar to yours, but I haven’t followed the case as closely or articulated my thoughts as much as you. But your first comment read like a reconsideration of very similar reactions of my own. And to take it further, since it seems about time for examining the parental POV, I mentioned the obvious…that they got their rude awakening. Meanwhile, the way I read the rest of your comments brings up the point of how else than badly can any interaction with medical authorities go, if we blindly obey their commands. I think it’s naive at best to look to mainstream behavioral careproviders to provide care. As Katie Higgins wrote, the fact of Justina’s humanity became incidental, and no one else on staff listened to anyone but doctors, and it is always like that.

  • I can’t understand why no prominent analyst of social problems suggests that the outrageous impact of forced treatment, coerced and forced drugging, extremely high dosages of very unpleasant substances, plus almost 100% of advocacy and sympathy aimed at those who support force used against their own family members–all of that and the hypocrisy that goes with it, as potent contributing factors for an anything goes way of looking for opportunities for revenge by very troubled people. Most especially the examples set by the system and its backers for mental patients who turn violent should bring the idea to the front of people’s minds that such criminality just is spawned by the idiocy of playing God and guaranteeing constant disfavor is shown your “captive audience”. Such perpetrators have exactly joined the system in spirit.

  • Rossa-

    I’m sure you can safely say about the parents shift from ignorance to experience, What a way to learn your lesson about psychiatry…. And certainly they would have received lifetimes worth of motivation for thinking about the abuse of authority, and let’s hope they aren’t taken advantage of again. As you pointed out, it’s been a good long time in the news with Justina, and having more explicit final analyses would be good for many reasons. Not least of which would be making the parents’ process of attitude change and coping strategies explicit. Did you have something like that in mind?

  • Monica, I notice that you already have blogged again, and just want to add my comment that all this language is right on target. The comments so far show how it strikes a natural chord and works right in stride with what others are continuing to learn in their terms and at their own pace. I see a connection that I appreciate to the Socratic paradox, that is, that no one does wrong except in ignorance, and find your formulation in regards to self-help particular cogent. Yes, let’s have the same standard for ourselves as for others, give ourselves the same breaks that we are willing to give others, and show the common conside ration that we also need. In this wise sense in which compassionate understanding applies as you have worked it out.

  • If something great happens for one person who gets fresh perspective on their meds, that’s just tremendous. But if they don’t get the whole picture of what’s wrong with the insanity defense, forced “treatment”, and that psychiatry is not a genuinely medical enterprise, then they won’t know what they’ve been through. It’ll be past for them, or the worst of it will, but it won’t ever be over, and they won’t know what they don’t know.

    I have met no professionals who would question or straighten out a “diagnosis” except to deepen it–the label just couldn’t ever have been wrong from the start, it had to be a stepping stone and if the complaint came from the patient, then it must have been something psychotic that they refused to explain. I have seen so much nonsense go down as doctors “informed” people, for instance about the meaning of their dreams as psychotic indicators, and watched psychologists just reinforce all the nonsense and rejection of patients’ own doubts about the effective validity of their label.

  • I believe that the most consistently overlooked factor in exacerbating any seemingly unavoidable symptoms that negatively affect how you perceive or sense the world, think or feel, to the point that the abnormality concerns you yourself, is the fate that looms in the form of the powerful treatment system and its extrta-judicial powers. If you feel doubtful about revealing the facts of your problems in the first place, the realization of what involuntary “treatment” and “histories of mental illness” and declarations of your incompetence matter for to this system transform difficult problems into impossible ones.

    Doctors and the allied mental health industry just takes the shape of all types of unhelpful excuses and mindless rejections of person’s needs that everyone already knows to expect and makes them official and “scientific”.

  • I certainly do feel like imbibing and shooting up after contemplating what psychiatry has in store for us…but know better to think it can satisfy my urge to strike back. I find most helpful, Dr. Hickey, this particular reference to Emil Kraepelin’s awakening. Now certainly Dr. Francis hasn’t shown willingness to give consideration to the severe handicap automatically attaching to psychiatric diagnosis. As a very simple matter of detail, the correct description of one instance of overwhelming depression would take many, many books, and these would form the basis of only the beginning of getting clear views of judgments of the feeling and presumed types of incapacitation involved here. My point is that there is negative emphasis maintained on the importance of encouraging patients to do their best in communicating their impressions of disturbing or reassuring aspects of their experiences. The label and the accumulated descriptions associated with it are substituted for live reports and confirmation is barely sought when it is sought at all, which is so rarely as to be a joke.

  • The truth: wherever psychiatry actually is, not enough of something is there along with it. Such as attention paid to facts and the limits of psychiatric explanation, or learning from the people it purports to explain anything much about, seeing to them for their understanding of what seems wrong, overwhelming, or too difficult, and presents the real problem in living. Psychiatrists pretend to get this done, but instead use the wealth of words they have available for communicating to pin people to little boxes of blurbs and factoids. I have never seen one persist in trying to become expertly acquainted with anyone’s lived experience, but have seen many looking for support in the effort to exclude it and disregard its relevance, and they get this very readily from their assisting staffs in hospitals. If it were only a matter of emphasis, things would be different, but outright abandonment of the patient’s perspective happens incessantly, and it is obvious that anyone in distress that makes it hard to think past the emotional pain just is relegated to non-personhood. They can count only as burdens and threats until they are saying yes, please, and thank you to their “caregivers” and getting forgiven by them for creating such difficulty with their “previous suffering”.

  • My notion of anti-psychiatry he’s pretty closely to Thomas Szasz’s, that he rejected it along with orthomolecular psychiatry is something everyone knows. I assume that CorInna alludes to the idea when she says it’s our N-word. So, it’s also like the term pro-life, which states the opposite of what it should mean, and stands for coerced reproduction. I am sure that we have to push to have two types of psychiatry widely available. One that is as phony as at present and provides dogma and excuses and industrial treatment, for those who like saying they are sick, one for facts and options and good counsel. Soon I will have totally helped myself and will forever see nothing respectable about the results touted by either of the current APAs and their matching categories for the abnormal and the non-compliant. Will there be any action after recovering on my own after ridiculous clinical enslavement and detention? Just protest and criticism. Most they are wrong plenty but will gladly accept the majority vote of approval. Anti- establishment attitudes are most important here.

  • Hi Corrina – Thanks for keeping the consideration of labels and terms foremost in the discussion of how to represent the cause of opposing psychiatric oppression. Obviously, the big difficulty with anti-psychiatry is the fact of the tradition it originally served which fostered versions of belief in attributing “illnesses” and specialness of various kinds to people suffering with undeniable problems of adjustment and unhappy over-reaction for which there are simply not ever going to be medical approaches that suffice to explain or ameliorate those conditions. Like you are careful to say, it would be great to have thorough weeding out of physical factors by real medical means, but it isn’t done. In fact, it’s prevented by the cruelly intended word-game of labelling and the coercive demand to adhere to your reduced status as the good patient who accepts “insight into their illness” as the way to regain freedom and seeming kindnesses from the incarcerating maniacs who claim they keep society safe with their hospitals.

  • Hi Justin – You say it all and still there is no end to what we will need to keep saying. Everything that points to legal reform is needed in the same way as ever, ending forced treatment and the disguised coercion of eliminating responsibility for actions for “real” mental patients so that they have the form of incarceration that denies them trials.

  • Melissa – Nice update on your perspective here. I wonder if you have seen any advantage to the mad pride concept of creative maladjustment (derived from Dr. King)? That seems to match the context of your approach to what’s going on with psych drugs and the rhetoric of fashionable mental health treatment. Sustaining any type of critical attitude toward those who deem the normal and appropriate their special domain of expertise requires this kind of empowering self-concept, I think. “Earn your human rights by obeying clinical treatment orders” is exactly the unacknowledged truth of this system.

  • Ally – I love what you did with your label in laying claim to getting drugged coercively or under coercive conditions because you were a sensitive person. That’s the right kind of boldness, another good tweak of survivor speech. I totally relate. All the suppressed language about what you feel and think and need and want to change about yourself gets replaced in practice by the constant demand to own your mental illness and give up your free will, on and on. I hope you can get stronger continually and take pride in learning how to explain more and more of what you understood to achieve in terms of growth, in order to be able to do as much as you have so far.

    Funny that there are no rating scales in any service provider offices that are developed for self-reporting whether you believe you can expect to completely overcome iatrogenic damage, the stigmatizing label, and the social abuse for risking your protest statements and consciousness-raising activities about hostile professional “care-providers”.

  • Hi Stephen–

    This is the kind of story, a disillusioned first-timer’s revelation of the stinking attitude problems on which the whole field is based, that shows how easily and quickly anyone could get to the point of the injustice of forced treatment who wanted to. I can’t believe how many people expect to get trusted and do win the loyalty of their readers who downplay and leave aside the insipidity and malignant intentions of people who use the system to play God and boss around the un-people. It’s a constant.

  • B – Personal experience…? I didn’t see whether you meant observing or attempting, but understand along with you that these obviously will increase as tendencies because of how forced treatment and the image it creates of your incompetence looms there in the less explored corners of your neighborhood. I can’t relate to the happy hopefulness people see in the hospital who like thinking that mental illness is a good word and that this kind of thing is taken expert care of by doctors. They are unbalanced.

  • Self-identification–what to make of this. I’ve met a young person who decided to accept the label for ADHD, and grew certain that this was to his advantage. It got him the drugs, of course, and gives him rationale for regulating his use. But since the principle of psychoactive drugs is to achieve a desired experiential effect that is remedial or life-enhancing in the balance, regulation of use just is quasi-objectively achievable. Sensitivity to your suffering and your means to control your actions tends to fade behind the labelled attributes of the disorder right along with the impairment from the drugs. Anyone who decides to make medication a dietary supplement for maintaining mental well-being has lifetimes worth of research to do, and misinformation and suppressed information and perspectives to sort out, and I can’t see yet how the psychiatric labels that we get support that cause. With PTSD we at least had President Bush say “No-just PTS”. So when I saw a group of veterans with recalcitrant “symptoms” they employed helpful language such as calling the label what it technically is, a mere “explanatory redescription”, not the name of an entity there in the world. But President Obama conveniently sees mental illness as like diabetes.

  • Melissa–Sorry about the wealth of grammatical ambiguity from all the typos above. But I think what I was going through really having trouble expressing is not totally leaving me offline today. The guiding feeling, which re-awoke in me finally, from what you say about your Star Boy, for me, is just the thought of “Congratulations”. That’s the most natural response to happy, affectionate Mom’s and it is difficult to understand someone else’s needing love and respect explained, since how can the matter of difference in potential abilities obtrude on that? I guess that what people want who can’t look straight at challenging mental differences, of one kind or another, and still see the good life probably just is a label to make it all officially OK. Thanks for doing your work on considering labels in such a personal way.

  • I’ve most definitely met Nurse Ratchet in OT home enforcement, and the controlling influence of hospitals is definitely top-down and bottom-up male, and the stereotypic division of labor among staff, with women caregivers crying foul and raising alarms very tendentiously, and men caregivers acting to intimidate enforcing servility is very much actually played out, as though there never had been a Cuckoo’s Nest or feminist tirade about patriarchal oppression, each easily appreciated as deserved. Of course, the usual plan to coax and tolerate and make questions of obedience a moot point is most apparent at all hours, when patients haven’t bee bad. What a gold mine for politics of difference to study, and where are all the academics?

  • Melissa–You really keep putting two and two together and coming up with new insights, and really seem more and more on track all the time, steadily, from the time of your first efforts to describe your horrible trials with misinformation and, at best, spotty attention from your physician. How you embrace your parental responsibilities and bring out the unproblematic side of what’s natural about loving and caring for your son definitely inspires those of us who are reading for knowledge of what to do right amidst so many reminders in our own expereinces of what is done that is wrong. Anyone trying to rely on the tyranny of the majority in behavioral healthcare certainly has no ends of lessons to learn about semantic games, and your getting into the think of it without acting like a person with a hammer who see nothing but nails. You’re not letting your ideals get ruined, and offering up the messages that go with your efforts in that way.

    I wouldn’t want to suggest anything different than your current angle on your own or your child’s or anyone’s life problems, that you know or could imagine knowing. I would like to share that it is fine with me to take my problems (with intense stress and frustration, depersonalization that let up but never quits, guesses about drugs, etc.) as the fact of disability. I fully understand someone having other ideas about that, but in my case it would have been vastly superior to expereince someone ever saying something like “you seem incapacitated by some mental problems, partially” or ask and use the such words, compared to what actually goes on in all the clinical settings I’ve known. No one has ever attempted to become an expert on my lived experience or acted like caring about my onw case could have motivated my questioning attitude. Only the exact opposite, and much worse has ever gone on, to the point of farce, with a number of exceptions that could never be thought to make up for the injuries and lack of good done. I’m sure you can believe this and also that–to me–it’s just horrible that mental hospitals operate 24 hours a day with the dominance of influence that they hold over their patients freedom and wellbeing, and that it’s considered valid not to get to know them as equals.

  • Additionally, this is totally to be expected since teens are ultra-sensitive to social conditions, and know that their lives are going to be ruined or thought ruined for the fact of running into the terrible misadventure that psychiatry sets before them as “hospital treatment”, that psychologists of all persuasions other than downright anti-psychiatry critical stances mindlessly and self-servingly go along with.

  • I take plenty of interest in this kind of overview. Again, I retreat to really well known figures and work in the ideas and associated exercises piecemeal, just to get any handle on getting unstuck and calm. For instance, the problem of “waiting”–I thought Echard Tolle was successful in deconstructing it as (sometimes) pathological–you’d say a very unnecessary headtrip, while physically waiting can hardly be avoided. And–ouch–it could take a lifetime. Maybe so since everything is an experiment, though we often are sure what we’d like to see for results. At any rate, it took careful attention to how and about what particular emotions get triggered and how they are corruptions of the just as natural flow of feelings (about life and people generally) for me to get out of thinking that I had to heal my brain. The alteration of experience to something pleasant and fun answers the craving that persists in depression, but seeing that you face a problem in living rather than some basically medical issue is what kept me able to keep at fighting off the unlucky downer moods. But, of course, lots of physical problems came up and can have something to do with the causes and aggravate the effects. I can relate to the meaningfulness of your points and their relevance to this article very well.

  • Hi John–You also can have the emotional reaction of feeling depressed, that isn’t bound to lead to an entire change of mood. You know the one: there are all these frustrating things, but wha’t the use, and then you get the automatic reaction. Same with disappointed emotional reactions that happen of a sudden, etc. And it is worth picking them out and noticing the unrealistic ruminations that ensue. I have relied a good bit on Sartre’s distinction in this regard between emotion and feeling, and though not expertly adept, don’t generally fixate upon bad moods and the distressing symptoms, and for me, luckily, they don’t stick around. But I used to think that I had “a disorder”.

  • Dr. Carey–I read your conference paper on that website and printed a copy for my files. I gather that some further acquaintance with the theory would help me see old experiences that lacked luster under at the time under a new lens, and understand that that means deriving some additional means of justification for any critical take on the shortcomings of the clinical approaches. Since we know that the main problems with this system involve the unexamined power relations, the intense and often concealed pressure to conform to expectations of what these “private” interactions “mean”, and the profound denial of the steadily contrived support for the status quo in all aspects, I like the idea of having a way to introduce complexity into my response. Again, complexity is assumed imaginary once modern behavioral approaches begin to show who’s really boss, right?
    Thank you for this link suggestion.

  • Very basic questions are avoided by those who stay content with ECT by telling themselves it’s therapeutic–but always of course, for someone else. Not for them, not for spas and hotels and not for the black market. No one is interested for their own sake but the lemmings and the conspicuously coaxed, already desperate persons–all but helpless and faced with the problem of cooperating or paying the price for doubting. That’s the set-up and that’s what’s sold and commended, and it’s obviously that it’s done and calls for training and certification, and not that it’s healthful or reliable when done, that keeps anyone trained defending it, who won’t undergo the procedure themselves so as to present authoritative testimony and denounce the stigma of it all…from experience.

    Worse to get information from than drug pushers, less help in difficult times than cops– congratulations again, doctors.

  • Dr. Carey, Thank you for coming through with the positive attitude angle in acknowledging my reaction to the care on offer. The attempt to rule out subjectivity, to squash the client’s self-initiative and disavow it’s worth is so obviously not what it takes to ensure authoritative scientific work in–for Christ’s sake–caregiving. I still cannot be sure I would ever had someone step up to help me get my symptoms appropriately discriminated ever, at all, if I had stayed with the orders and instructions so far given. No one will admit that their perceptions rule their understanding quite beside the point of what the patient tells them once the opportunity arises to shape the reports according to what is official and approved as the disease at hand, no matter that the ideas never click or produce results, with approximately one exception in an out of state for me female psychiatrist, and just her in thirty plus years that I’ve been at this. Athough maybe one other lady doctor would have stayed receptive to trauma talk, but the closed-minded group in town here did not keep Ms. Cowboy Boots on for more than the one round at which I saw her.

    Depersonalization is neither easy to describe, nor is it totally unique langauge from the labels that get you tethered to the system as payee for life. Guess which way rules the roost. When it becomes suddenly severe, as it can, it can be terrifying, and it never did any good to have people insist that I was having racing thoughts or asking if I felt like hurting myself every fifteen minutes or if I was hearing voices when how I felt was almost like I’d disappeared. What a joke and what a travesty to examine this brand of expert advice. Only finally has a book been worth it, but even this has meant a good long while to apprehend the lessons for my personal experience, as in every case there are other ways to say what’s up. But every person paid to be of help has been content to look on and dictate that it’s what they see the most of and get to call their own charges forevermore, and not once has an inquiry in my favor counted. Both doctors and therapists knowledgeable enough to have helped me actually showed their dislike of getting involved against the grain, no matter that it meant me wasting my life. You are right that it’s these last resorts, and the most severe critics of the field, in addition, that we have got to keep in mind.

  • Monica, I’m really glad that you took the time to go over what you went through at the time in your spontaneous, thorough fashion. I want to offer that as far as naming certain difficult adjustments iatrogenic ones, after you decide that you have to come to your own rescue or no one will, is in itself a whole huge step. Just acknowledging that not only were you in trouble in the natural course of your life, but that you got hurt seeking help is as painful as it is a relief, because it takes tearing free from the story you were most encouraged to believe and that you hoped was true. But if your label didn’t help–and I can’t see them as help myself, no matter the accuracy, since you are you and there is not some disease entity–and you have to recover from something for which you’ve gotten no help, you have to start thinking of iatrogenic causes and effects. In part, you have to get past those who won’t talk about them with you and remind yourself that you can, as you indicate. Anyway, I kept my plans in my head most of the time, in trying to find out what would work since the label assigned never could have, and I am only now beginning to emote efficiently again.

    The suppression of emotion is so fully undertaken in hospital settings it is hard to believe or get anyone who hasn’t noticed it to believe you about. Of course, not for the staff who go into alarming and disenchanting freewheeling modes of flying off the handle in order to build up their camraderie in contrast to the patient milieu’s obedience training. I am positive that I’ve seen people who could not in a million years come to have confidence in their supposed diagnosis, not because of their foolishness, but because of their insight into having some problem that it didn’t pin down right and that it distorted. But I couldn’t get going to talk to them at the time, so involved I was with my own misdirected understanding, drugged state, and uncertainty. I recall the things I heard said to these people to invalidate their concern and content them with career mental patienthood.

  • Hi Dr. Bracken,

    I see how your discussion of the limits of the medical model draws from the understanding of the fatal limitations of methodological indivdiualism in reductionistic, psychological understanding. Very few behavioral healthcare workers doubt that their services provide the potentially comprehensive response to the expertly identified “mental illness”, whichever nonentity it is that plays the leading role in the patient’s life. They will likely believe that there are hitches and glitches and imperfections, but not something vastly wrong in the academic and professional world that guarantees a climate for producing error, sweeping in currents that flow as often top-down as bottom-up, always creating the greatest of opportunities for ignoring those errors.

    Such as in diagnosis. You can’t get a doctor to take his nose off the label on a page, not that I’ve met. You can’t find anyone at all who reacts intellibly to a discussion of the problem of isolating the social existence within the skull of a single individual, if that’s most convenient to do, since that’s where the mental illness is. No one where I live who works and earns their living in behavioral healthcare will have heard of the well-known problems of methodological individualism, and I’ve never met one inside who had lately tried to make sense of Wittgentstein or Merleau-Ponty. They would also not be fast to relate to the idea that psychology can’t offer stand-alone scientific conclusions of human potential and suffering, or simply of human behavior. They don’t see why not.

    As fast as you can believe, my efforts aim to seeing that none of my children’s children believe in mainstream acounts of behavioral problems or that its clientele’s best interests are the first order of business for clinicians. Non-patient-advocacy is the universal default position.

  • Dr. Carey, The predominance of the current paradigm of “care” (no way around the quotes…) creates more than one self-fulfilling kind of problematic cycle of things “proven” by observation. While Robert Whitaker has paid close attention to the process of mistaking the true nature of outcomes, the process of restrictively employing a default attitude of advocating for non-patients (society, family, other caregivers) over patient advocacy itself, directed by understanding of patients’ goals, certainly works against obtaining the facts needed to augment all the understanding that science can bring to bear on mental health issues.

    People who work in the system and people who write about it, too, mostly prefer to believe in the staff and architects of the care on offer as the benefactors of their clients until proven otherwise. But as you point out, the attitude of expropriating patients’ rights to choose their care level contradicts this very principle that guides the understanding of the benefit to a hospital stay.

    That you can’t visit mental hospitals without giving up your freedom is really disgusting. It’s double jeopardy and official abrogation of your civil rights coming and going no matter what you try if you are once ever “held”. How can people who twist arms to get the reponse they want purport to believe that they are obtaining accurate evidence of anything about persons except what matters for instilling docility? Yet, just look–the mainstream view (see Al Frances) just is that coercion is a bygone thing.

    People just really do like to believe that medical services specific to the mental disease detected happens to save those who won’t save themselves. It’s as bad as ever.

  • Rachel, I am planning to read your upcoming book. So far I have read only this post and your article against Hacking, discussing “weedy kinds”, which I keep on my desktop. I appreciate learning from your writing, and my favorite present philosopher of psychiatry is your colleague Dr. Hannah Pickard.

    What interests me is just what is getting referred to, and if it is a concept or physical entity, when we get diagnosed with “some” disorder. I can’t understand how the metaphysical status could be more subtantive for one of these non-medically approached disorders of psychiatry than is the existence of dents, wrinkles, or shadows. Even ineffable afterthoughts and guessing that you smelled something are more definitely there than “a disorder” with its own name, qualities, and age.

  • Dr. Hickey, I just finished working through a book from UK sources on combatting Depersonalization and Feelings of Unreality. Although the material is still not spin-free, and fails to openly criticize the mainstream of psychiatry, they do bemoan misinformation and the catastrophizing attitudes associated with medicate. medicate, medicate arguments. They really soft-pedal that, actually, but it’s clear that they mean to suggest that client’s already have a hard enough time with symptoms before they are further encouraged in the wrong directions. Hence, this book was all about CBT methods for breaking feedback loops and reducing the problems that occur, and the worsening of the symptoms that occur, due to symptom monitoring.

    Yet the group still strongly pushes the concept of discrete disorders, warns you off of their approach of you DPAFU “is part of another disorder”, etc. This is clearly beside the point. Any kind of “psychiatric symptom” can happen to anyone from any number of causes, and the duration and intensity or causes can differ, overlap, assimilate to other causes and symptoms, change immediately once described, and so forth. At any rate, reading the book carefully, and comparing and contrasting with some things I did already helped me out. But the most important therapeutic factor was things the book did not do.

    It did not lock me in my house or in my room and did not require me at the nurses’s station and threaten me with state hospital time if I didn’t take my meds, and it didn’t tell me what I thought, felt, believed, or was intending.

    Except for the voiced opposition–like yours–that exists above and beyond the medical profession’s own forums, people like Dr. Pies get such a free ride after continually misinforming and denigrating people who originally came to the system for serious help. Most of the time, still, we are liable only to get the party line, the closed mind, and the incivility typical of the “clinical setting”.

  • Hi Tracey, You totally get the point across of the rigidity and defensiveness built in to harboring belief in your mental illness. As far as psychiatry’s prospects and efficacy, I think that many parts of what they do can legitimately attain scientific status, but the behavioral fields all need to make the fact that treatment is pseudomedical explicit and clear. I am not pushing for the idea that psychiatry is automatically anything good, of course. At best, in rare situations, it could work out humaely, compared to the inescapibility of its dictates that we face today. Rather, I am still in the thick of what you have reported about here, committed to looking into every nook and cranny of my encounter with people and situations for what the difference is between seeing myself up against something that is my responsiblity to handle, and letting myself get talked into “having” some discreet disorder or disease to get treatment for. Although never believing in the latter, even giving credence to discussions by those who do, so as to understand in their terms their sincerest concerns leaves a film of superstition and pseudoscientific goop to scrape away and clean out of your mind.

    On that note, I want to say that the worst thing still happening just is forced treatment, beginning with the fact that no matter what you do in checking into hospitals for help with your problems in living or your mental distress, that however responsibly you intend to do yourself good, your effort is immediately ruined by the lessening of your liberty and the doctrine of non-responsiblity that most every “well-meaning” staff person intends as to the patient’s favor. Obviously, psychiatry as practiced just serves as a means to create the classification of defective persons and hopes to tether a group of sufferers to itself for life. Patently, psychologists go right along with helping the psychiatrists enforce the paradigm of “care”.

  • Sheila – In other words, to me you are giving it to them good who deserve to here they are not getting things underway effectively. You are telling the truth. You and all other lone voices in the wilderness know that you have to stand out against all the same prejudices that actually matter for stigma itself. The whole fight for truth and disclosure has to take place over again every time anyone bucks the dominant opionion in power or in the press or in the homes and workplaces.

  • Sheila – I just got Emmeline’s worry on the above comment, while unfortunately my intention had been to congratulate you on very much so really getting the point stated loud and clear that’s the right point. I see how it could sound like I took you for a complainer, but my honest belief is that you get that there is no excuse for this foot-dragging and cheapened attitudes by officials about how it’s justified. I am going to try to imagine that every sentence can mean an insult and start saying “not to insult you, but you look great here–” I not only admire your work, it is inspiring and impossible not to believe in for me. I concur so totally with your idea of this incident and the general issues, that I shouldn’t comment except to say when I don’t.

    You are doing exactly perfectly, and it would make no sense from me to say otherwise.

  • Francesca – Sorry now “how it’s getting stated as it is stated means what it does mean about what it would take to counter-argue the point effectively” to spell it all out. I don’t see how some words can get to be sick, except in metaphorical ways, and your thoughts depend on words and never not, even your feelings and perceptions somehow ultimately do. The mentality of language users just is hugely determinate of their powers and limitations, but the person who has to acknowledge a labelled disorder to keep from getting denied services, like counselling, or to get recognized as having the right to defend themselves, as in court, is every bit as discriminated against as any other way of saying “lack of insight”. You can try and try, but the system is set up to promote and strengthen non-patient advocacy ahead of patient-first advocacy, because of self-satisfied and self-important feeling people in positions of authority for claiming expertise about who is sane and who is too unlikely to satisfy the prevailing opinion of how we should all generally behave and think to keep life good.

    The battles faced involve acrimonious and hypocritical attacks on persons, as clearly as it does equivocating about whether someone is or is not responsible for their actions. People just are responsible, period. They therefore can be irresponsible, but they cannot be unresponsible.

  • Francesca – Again, have you tried to see Dr. Moncrieff’s explanation that there just cannot be some type of discrete entity that can be separated off from the person whose mind could be said to be disordered? You might find it liberating to understand how this argument proceeds and how it getting stated what it does means what matters for counter-arguing against it. I could see that the person could be responsible for confusion, but not afflicted with something besides confusion, since something mental can’t be something sick, except figuratively. Like homesick, lovesick, etc. You can feel awfully bad, but still have to take responsibility for your actions. You can want a new life, but still have to win you battles and gain some friends in order to protect your rights.

  • Hiya CatNight – Nothing much but appreciation for me to express, I see. But if it might suit you to hear it, or lead to a healing thought, I will chance a further word. When you get a therapy set-up that seems to help you, you got it set up, the therapist sat in. What they have to occupy themselves with, if it works to your benefit, works as much from depriving them of opportunities to compromise the openness of the space or legislate within it what rates well or deserves attention or doesn’t as does to qualify the proof of the outcome in your eyes or theirs.

    You have tons of experience that would essentially serve me and most people very well. You don’t seem like you would want anyone to have to do what you did, and especially run into the malfeasance and rigidity endorsed as proper advice and best care practices.

    I personally ever knew only one psychologist who was able to give herself over to her responsibility to advocate for me in the space that opened between us suitable for that purpose. The impression settled in for me ineluctably that if the person with whom my interpersonal conflict had developed were to follow me in some future session of his with this same female therapist in charge, I would have complete confidence that she was advocating on his behalf, and was now working for him to come to terms with something uncomfortable or restrictive in our dealings together, something that was not worth much attention except to clear it up so he could get to move on.

    Maybe that could only happen in a relationship that was limited by ethical rules of conduct like therapy is supposed to be. Anyway, if it hadn’t been for that, I would not have distrusted bad care so much when I got it due to other different problems later on.

  • madmom (& Reverend Steve), sorry for two mistakes (at least)- I didn’t say “that count” to complete a sentence. Also, I forgot where I was and mentioned this new Salon reporter who just had his first article here this week associating him with this article and thread. I also, however, believe this author sees that idea of persons as persons, no doubt. The Reverend I thought would in particular grasp the indefiniteness of looking back to find the pure evidence relevant to explaining the inevitable stigma that makes facing mental and emotional problems impossibly unhandy.

    As an afterthought, I recall that mainstream psychological professionals are likewise mainly Non-patient Advocates. No wonder they never step up with advice like How to Work Your Label for Fun and Profit. They also endorse labels and psychiatry in their personality tests limitations of types of clients and conditions they will engage with. I believe that simply everyone who gets diagnosed should try to persist in self-help or procuring talk therapy help for the working through of traumas conceived in any plausible way at all. Then, with the idea that you don’t have to fear symptoms, just report them, and with lots of familiarity with feelings and self-acceptance, you really leave the medication in question for all time, and not the other way around, with yourself in question for what your worth and can do.

  • Hi madmom – I just read through your expressions of worry and hope, and haven’t seen how to respond beyond suggesting that your self-correction doesn’t have to stay final and perfect, and what you wanted it to replace hasn’t got to demand persistent attention. It’s the attitude that supports the interest taken and shown to someone about how they are and want things to be. One thing that it looks like we can count on Christian for is understanding that “mentally-ill” persons want to have a routine manner of satisfying their basic needs in convenient ways, then some opportunity to increase their satisfactions if they can. It’s only natural that if you suffer from incapacitation that involves your feelings and judgments and sense of how to relate them that you would mostly tend to try exercise your self-sufficiency back into working order. But people end up in boxes on the street or bouncing off their apartment walls and to me this proves that the biggest factors are sociolinguistic in measuring the differences between individual modes of experience and the explanation of conduct. I’ll check into now, anyway.
    As far as how tired I get of having learned more than I can say, you have no idea! You would not have trouble getting facts out of me and beliefs uncomplicated by too much input and not enough action for seeing how the knowledge pays. For instance, I only meant to create impressions, and just wanted other people to have pictures of their own. I hope your daughter starts getting her say, and that you can find alternative ways to extend her freedom from incarceration and intense medication. Good wishes in that.

    Rev. and madmom, sorry for two mistakes (at least)- I didn’t say “that count” to complete a sentence. Also, I forgot where I was and mentioned this new Salon reporter who just had his first article here this week. the Reverend I thought would grasp the indefiniteness of looking back to find the pure evidence relevant to explaining the inevitable stigma that makes facing mental and emotional problems impossibly unhandy. The mainstream psychological professions are likewise mainly Non-patient Advocates. No wonder they never step up with advice like How to Work Your Label for Fun and Profit. They also endorse them in their personality tests. I believe that simply everyone who gets diagnosed should try to persist in self-help or procuring talk therapy help for the working through of traumas conceived in any plausible way at all. Then, with the idea that you don’t have to fear symptoms, just report them, and with lots of familiarity with feelings and self-acceptance, you really leave the medication in question for all time, and not the other way around, with yourself in question for what your worth and can do.

  • Hi madmom – I just read through your expressions of worry and hope, and haven’t seen how to respond beyond suggesting that your self-correction doesn’t have to stay final and perfect, and what you wanted it to replace hasn’t got to demand persistent attention. It’s the attitude that supports the interest taken and shown to someone about how they are and want things to be. One thing that it looks like we can count on Christian for is understanding that “mentally-ill” persons want to have a routine manner of satisfying their basic needs in convenient ways, then some opportunity to increase their satisfactions if they can. It’s only natural that if you suffer from incapacitation that involves your feelings and judgments and sense of how to relate them that you would mostly tend to try exercise your self-sufficiency back into working order. But people end up in boxes on the street or bouncing off their apartment walls and to me this proves that the biggest factors are sociolinguistic in measuring the differences between individual modes of experience and the explanation of conduct. I’ll check into now, anyway.
    As far as how tired I get of having learned more than I can say, you have no idea! You would not have trouble getting facts out of me and beliefs uncomplicated by too much input and not enough action for seeing how the knowledge pays. For instance, I only meant to create impressions, and just wanted other people to have pictures of their own. I hope your daughter starts getting her say, and that you can find alternative ways to extend her freedom from incarceration and intense medication. Good wishes in that.

  • Mr. Exoo – That’s a plenty great acknowledgement, let me say. Now, I don’t think, talk, or write otherwise “It’s my pleasure to introduce…”, but you are doing your job of introducing yourself nicely. So that dumb note to myself had to do with how worthy of reflection were your chiefly MLA-certified statements. I thought you took a stylistic risk with the choice of term and hit the mark regardless of how someone might prefer the term regarded on its own merits. We certainly need accurate and clear content like mad. Self-help comes into being there, too.
    As far as the politics, please be aware that the Bazelon Center actually as good as welcomed this reform measure proposal long ago by its historic support of the Durham rule over the more conservative McNaughten rule, which left responsibility looming large and not so many excuses all around and at the ready.

  • Christian Exoo – How your story worked for me. For one thing, it was unlike most of what I read about this stuff, “mental illness”. You can try this yourself about something popularly misconceived, if you can think of it. I got twice as informed by purposely pausing to register the feel, not adding time so much as effort, of the actual meaning of “mentally ill” and “mental illness” each time you said it. So each time, it was the generic or named but unknown by me case of some human being who just has got messed up, very much like getting extremely fatigued, and pushing beyond punchdrunk into unrecognizable patterns of unhelpful to notice things and feelings and adventures in thought that may or may not seem to present a problem. There is after all no real attention paid to talking people down or into the most pliant (not compliant) and safe feeling of moods in order to “take their tempature more accurately”. There are not these illnesses and no discrete disorders to lift away from the person and treat, wholly mental or biological either.

    So I said the first part of my special attention to watching the sense of the meaning sink in with the least part of it, the lived experience side. The new and valuable difference was seeing the “others” from the neutral viewpoint, that they just have some very subtle functioning shut down, some very subtle functioning on like it shouldn’t be. Just like me. So, besides for this one actually mythical object of reference, you could read some stock trade literature on alcoholism ramifying the disease model, as literally as possible, at every turn. Focus on the fact of how people work themselves into the addiction with continual effort, and see how much better you understand what you’ve been told. You could see the point of grappling every time with that word “mental”–if you don’t already, if only for a moment. Although, you could just have gone ahead as though blithely in support of the popular take, and that led to the smooth, attractive flow of your reporting, there’s bound to be so much variance on what patients and non-patients alike imagine or feel is proved that you will certainly have a worthy history of the evolution of your own use of the term to recount and decide on in the off-moments, perchance.

    This has to do with how content is learned anyway, and is also more practical and understood by changing and rearranging how you attend to things than it is theoretically explained. Focusing Institute does obscure the limitations of their research, and they haven’t got the monopoly they say, but they’re big. Just not advocates except for the standard fare division of labor and theory for the upset a little bit here and the real defects! there.

    And if you want something to get the idea straight and to keep around and share that is top of the line, from a woman in the business who advocates for patients too and is British and a damned fine philosopher of the mind and enough as one of science. Here, it’s my pleasure to introduce you to Hannah Pickard:

    http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf-file/0016/11608/MIIM.pdf
    She is critical and ethical.

  • The trauma and stressor component of the two supposed independent and genetic diseases is denied on purpose and by people completely sucked in. I was with someone who had IBS and thought she had to avoid mania like the plague, and she got calmer and calmer and people started to notice. She talked to an old boyfriend who worked as a psych tech, and back she went to being a nervous wreck and we broke up. Proof erased. He was straight-up Left.

  • One psychiatrist steps in to say something smart and understandable according to commonsense, the totally extreme majority keep at what they’ve been doing, and little pockets of concern start to pop up here and there in there trade publications with much of the conversation aimed at how to stay the big experts and point out good psychiatry in each other wherever they can. I see this all the time. This has been the problem for fifty years, the suppression of natural learned habits of self-control. The drugging is the other side of the insanity defense and indefinite involuntary commitments.

  • I saw this issue get particularly twisted into knots of disrespect and avoidance in support groups. Discussing stigma was slated bogus, all problems of emotional types were just that chemical balance going wrong. Anything about identifying the point of the emotion or ongoing concern was treated like stupidity over and over at MHA until it was like talking about something that never happened and was a sign of your unworthiness. I noticed people just disappear into this group delusion about life.

  • I know that is B & W in the cursory analysis, but not knowing medical history better, I see it serves the right purpose to say that the malfeasance inherent in prestigious caregiving and specialization of training leads here as progressively as we can very well see it to become undernoticed and ever-present simultaneously, worse than ever before.

  • Okay, Someone Else, I think you subjected yourself to a misreading of my comment. But you turned it into the opportunity you were looking for, there at the end– or close enough for government work.

    I suggested that medical doctors since they could, not excepting the APA who profiteer most inhumanely at present, have tried to get control of who can and would obtain their services, who they would answer to and how to influence and overwhelm and occupy those overseers of their industry, and will add here that they hate and gripe and fib every time studies show the value of cutting back on their aggressive programs for preventing the worst of problems. This, again, has never not ended up only creating better conditions for medical riffraff to get off scot-free, to overcharge, to discriminate at whim, and to offer degraded services and poorer and poorer information by routine, attention-getting, time-demanding methods of talking you out of your own better judgment.

  • Someone Else – I follow you up to and through here for this thread, to the best of my ability to recount and apply the facts of your personal case history to what you mean to convey with critical explanations of your thoughts here. Much of that has come through piecemeal, although you probably couldn’t believe the extent of the outrage and the degree to which the offending parties are kept legally insulated, and this leaves you frustrated no matter how determined you are to rid yourself of negative affects on your family and yourself. Take it easy if you can, and let me see how I understand you below….

  • Rev. – One of the things I am sure you have hoped to apprehend in small ways is the possiblity for explaining the psychological unpleasance attending the dawning realization of the nature of their imminent destination and probable future life beyond the least welcome of plastic bracelets. The whole Winesburg, Ohio of your inner life scans rather insubstantially in comparison to what you think of four walls you haven’t seen in a psych ward. For those who, let’s say, begin to decide that in some sense they are prodromal or unable to believe they’re not intoxicated since things are shaping up like they are, while no manner of its happening was evident, etc.– this may be their first time to consider what they actually believed about facing Lock-up for Your Mind, in a state of reflection, however subtly compromised, in which sympathy’s role in self-preservation gave them their fairest vantage on that. The point to me is that no labor is put into explaining what there is to feel good about this pretend safe haven, really. The preaching is directed to how to maintain versions of belief in mental illness as a difference-making few statements beyond what supposedly conditions the reactions and changes the needs of someone suffering incapacitation, mentally and emotionally somehow. These are laced with platitudes about how such people just need special psychiatric attention and must never forget it, that it’s unkind to let them, dangerous or self-destructive to think of themselves as normal. So everyone helps with this. The person who felt compelled to think of the need for a breather, perhaps, someone to help talk her down, with some remaining measure of confidence in her- or himself, has had suddenly to get shocked out of their reservations only emergency comfort zone and start deciding how best to present themselves, since it most obviously matters more than hospitals care to suspect , would ever admit, or will care until forced to, for proving how the difference between naive expectations and what experience painfully teaches is going to affect everything about the idea for assigning your permanent label. Meet the terminal need for sociological understanding of how psychiatry parades its treats and favors, and insists that no such things like recalls need happen to its sorry tries. You don’t lose confidence in your own cognizance or powers of reasoning against a background of freedom and hope at all, because it’s off with you to a house of cards and shame.

  • Paris – So sorry good guy. I hope you recognize the sign of character defects when malapropism swing suddenly into view. Mt appending those remarks as formulated was certainly inappropriate. But let me fix it up. Engaging with your work had good effect on me, unanticipatedly good–although I have to keep working along lines that exist with established ties to the venerable Western philosophical tradition, to achieve various purposes of my own. I hate having to qualify myself, though. Also, let me explain how the offbeat humor means something about what represents a truth for me, too.

    It’s like this, I can feel now that accepting what happened to me in terms of the brain deficits and dysfunction that were real results, is increasing my flow of feeling, letting me sort out some less articulable emotional reactions, too. This, without proof to the effect, I attribute to sustained attention to the reality of the whole likelihood in direct and immediate relation to your discourse on the same, mostly in the first half. And it was all free, right? Sure. Maybe you know about the problem supposed here, with psychological and psychiatric conditions, causally linking re-expereincing to dysfunction of VAM. Well, who knows….

    But anyway, I sort of can feel when things are getting different, and it is the appearance often enough of the well known feeling of waiting for what has happened too much already. Many variations on this a-functional syndrome continue to plague me. So, to stay on track for you, as your schedule requires, but thanks to this free comment thread, the thing that strikes me immediately upon excepting everything that has happened to me, as much as I can tell, getting over lots of intrapsychic conflict is that I don’t like my predicament now and can’t move ahead as I’d like to grow rapidly into acceptance of the situation and future life experience it suggests. So it burns me up, that all the years I sought help, the professionals, in one way or another were afraid of everything that was not the paradigm in place, and it just held me up at every turn. So I do think that it is important to see potentially abnormal or dangerous or bad and thoughtless misbehavior as lurking behind every distressing, tumultous emotion or uncertain idea of what they mean. I really do think it is the Left’s malfeasnce that dominates the goals of these profession–witness the pornablum of advertisement for psych hospital over what you can get done out free, recently in PT. The legal manipulations and social control measures just are what inevitably gets supported by the rule of specious fear of lost reputability or taking the wrong side (the patient’s) in a conflict with the big guys in his life, by at least an order of magnitude and automatically in numerous times and ways.

    Anyway, I finally decided–hastily, but I’m still willing, to see somebody for EDMR if she will return my call. Again, it bothers me to comply at all, to see what should not be considered more than natural fact given normative significance without my say. Such is the place.

  • Peter – this looks like what you signed up for and didn’t get and/or get wind of, all you got were drugs. The rest was push, shove, shove, push, wait, hammer. Also it looks like what you and me and almost all bio-moderns never got and few got encouraged to imagine. It’s a little peachy good, keen-and-fun give of niceness, reminiscency of nicety not seen and done. I think the inroad is for how you understand your predicaments and few breaks and many opportunites to re-establish your viewpoint on what you explain. I skipped around to see, for myself, at random.

    http://www.aipro.info/drive/File/The%20Polarity%20Therapy%20paradigm%20regarding%20preconception,%20prenatal%20and%20birth%20imprinting.%20R.%20Castellino%2030%2012%2013.pdf

    My own history on given reflections bites it till greed seems the basic problem, then, in America–because of the Left, there’s nothing to do except shed light. But little matters about on who or what, since it’s free here. Like for what you can see. I’m unimpressed with the struggle the Left puts up to maintain its front, its hierarchy, and its uni-voice.

    What crossed my mind in reading the several passages and paragraphs that was enough acquaintance for me, I considered your wink-lady, judge in review of the loser, and see how the Left with its dance-dancey games gives her little to warn you with but that, which implies that you were OK and a bad shopper. That is also all the good anyone gets inside. People on this site who mean to ramp up their game, survivors who go work on the still damaged goods population of patients, both messed up, wanting help, and largely in the dark by design, miss what you can see about that. Only human goodness makes the benefit stick. It’s games, like you know of and worse types that people count on for psychological wellbeing, and the persons doing the least about it, in the Academy here, in the helping professions here, play to an information track that inhibits the rights before law that stand often to get hardly better results for you or anyone free and ready to take interest in good living places and peeps.

    Forgive nothing and worry all. Ciao.

  • I tried to get current with getting the process explained, that one for going through what you couldn’t yet because of no hearing for your thoughts, no significance granted for your beliefs, no power to demand or refuse helping services needed. The present marriage of psych professions with the hospitals there as the cake is brutal. People are dying, I almost can’t believe this place.

  • Ok, well, God I was in over my head with you and full of nonsense. Ignore the complete risibility and look at as worthless, please. As for thinking you were in practice like for drugs, I was hoping and guessing and needing to say. Thanks for steering my idiotically under-informed goof talk back to something sane. I now owe you apologies from ear to ear. My intention really was not to hold open the possibility that you were not yourself a psychiatrist.

    I believe you deserve some space. Isn’t about right that pent-up frustration works out in release of anger? Unfortunately–but it wouldn’t be the only way if there were lots of language for the process.

    My bigger concern is rights, you seem full of remembrance for what that problem represents in psychiatry. It’s really no fun trying to get totally coolheaded again when what you have to look forward to is diminished by what people will associate with the bare fact of psych. lock-up. One game of pretend courtesy attends knowledge of voluntary in-hospital, another involuntary. I know both sides of each.

    I went over what didn’t work for me in experiencing this creep of feeling like I was waiting for what happened. My symptoms extend to bodily reflex actions, that are subpersonal, activated according to true memory, sets of reactions for spatial portions of movement and time-slices of movement, that were physical reactions of mine in a dangerous event. The triggers are traffic stimuli, sometimes images, somehow emergency vehicles a lot, and doctors in an emotional way. Sorry, sorry, sorry, I used you identity carelessly.

    About trying me on ranting about transient mental illness, I think that’s the phrase in use for critique, one that seems worth public notice. I am some certain percent jerk and apologize for not explaining myself well. But I wish you had been a doctor. I don’t know yet how they live with themselves, millions of people are hung up. You take your label to see the doctor, basically, not yourself or anything about you. They hate that you recover or mention trying. That is my experience, and sorry for you and the Tao not getting freedom right off the bat here.

    Once I know what to do, I don’t worry much, but this is a moronic public scene these days for beginning talks about bucking a generally malfeasant-Left project, like the shrinks’ one. You can exactly come to your senses and be attacked for saying you feel OK by the whole variety of mental health worker type. Maybe you said it confidently or not in the middle of professing your faith in them. It’s beyond odd, and it feels like a physical barrier, like a tumbling car interior imposing on you, for instance.

  • Walt–sorry, not doing well at the time. Really, bold and OK of you to fight back. It was against confusion and grief.

    Peter Breggin’s not my point man on this or anything, but he says that the PTSD (explanatory redescription) “diagnosis” is really helpful for his purposes. As with most of the problems in your field–that rejects information from patients and critics like mad–the psychosocial take goes down for the count a bit, too, in failing to catch us up on how to understand the role of a “symptom” as a re-adjustment. I had to go into psychological theory to learn anything offhand, never could from a shrink. They can’t look you in the face seriously about a little thing like this if they’ve got you on another label.

  • This is right next to stupid. A very dumb comment, that no one would want credit for. The frustration that overwhelms, trying to express so that you can understand, not just to get something bothering you out, is not effort that doctors like to reward. I know there are helpless mental cases, but can’t understand why doctors who know that they make others helpless with labels, drugs, and abrogation of civil rights, getting not very much understood right along the way, just let their mistakes ride.

    Why does your profession do that Walt? Why the heavy hands except for coming at so-called diagnoses and getting confirmations on how they were supplied. I know that millions of people were diverted from any moderately helpful course of treatment. It stand to reason and is never talked about by you.

  • Paris – Hi, you don’t know what you are saying in that sign-off. Here are my thoughts…

    I thought you were offering condensation/s from Rethinking Madness. Since your ambitions are correlative to the discussion and intentional being (not to mention Being &/v. Becoming), you ought to casually read through Joseph Margolis’s Historied Thought, Constructed World: A Conceptual Primer for the Turn of the Millenium. You need a week or two, but it’s a casual first helping rounded out for support of his conception of the I- vs. the i- intentional. For an easy good day’s read, there’s Auberry Castell’s The Self in Philosophy, which determines self as activity. But I’d take Professor Hacker’s final say on the matter in his fairly recent Human Nature, for which, to see what you’ve got coming you might skip over to Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. It’s something to do, deciding this terminological point. The review by a feisty, miffed German academe will reveal what irritates about the work that is not its weakness, its limitation, or its furthest reach, and certainly not any parochial results. Joseph Margolis also has a plausible discussion of the defensible possibility of reincarnation in his Philosphical Problems (or Problem in Philosophy or something), but your first priority ought not to be there with him: it takes a few periods of adjustment between chapters for his arguments’ development to stick right with the case in point of whichever you’re on–not saying you couldn’t just look ahead for the R. But it hasn’t an index. If you haven’t read it already, or have already gotten to the other types of thing to your satisfaction, Thomas Szasz’s The Meaning of Mind certainly becomes fond to remember, as he sidesteps much needless philosphizing himself. Now that I have gotten acquainted with Hannah Pickard’s manner and position, I should probably read that one again. Her “Mental Illness Is Indeed A Myth” appears in Matthew Broome’s and Lisa Bortolotti’s (eds.) whatever that I haven’t read–Psychiatry as Cognitive Science: Philosphical Perspectives. She must have a hate-following, as she’s honest, kind, and in the business. Her chapter, which is online, gives the lowdown on Boorse and Szasz in short order, and doesn’t stop short of neutrality regarding the respective authors’ fates.

    I liked in this piece of yours how the discussion recognizes that the labels put out there don’t in themselves give anyone very much to work with. The imagination put into the vast and more than the vast bulk of the literature could fit in two places fast, a dustjacket or the test pattern. I take issue with you can’t/won’t displacement regarding worst cases. It’s still won’t if it’s not neurological by definition, if the problem resides in conceptual constructs for all parties in question. They’ve had enough time for something a-normative. Maybe you mean the nurse’s can’t “How are we?” kindly, witty, freewheeling, appropriate, perhaps untrained. Or maybe you’ve gone at it with the i/Intentional and I don’t see the Can’t yet.

    Interestingly, where you are wrapping up core beliefs, I felt like you only left yourself the final explanation for the curious, most remarkable and inquisitive survivor, that they had done it all to themselves, unintentionally, gotten out of whack. Not very pricey or elegant, but common in a good way, safe enough (I hope). For the purpose of enlisting colleagues, your style earns points, since the debate is up on the approach to opening a space for sharing. You do it now. You keep with it and keep doing it now. I would, however, put in a word for Murray Bowen over and above Carl Rogers for emphasis on tenacity. Rogers didn’t oppose much, that I’m aware of, and insisting that psychologists shouldn’t just never misbehave and call it quits took a lot of podium time. Mabye I don’t know his big confrontation with silent “P”, the malfeasant to death. Bowen is also the thinking man’s Heinz Kohut. Years ago, I read an issue of some academic journal devoted to psychological interventions on reservation lands, and attachment theory was very fittingly applied and demonstrated. The multi-disciplinary explanation could not have gotten all the marrow out of it, already. Also, you obviously are ready to take on the Inner Critic supposedly universal in your field. That should be good. I never forget brain deficits and brain dysfunction, and your emphasis adequately circumnavigates the topic of what persons are that selves might not be: i. e., non-linguistic creatures. Likewise, you aim to manage your play of terms in light of disctinctions between normative judgments and the logical understanding of natural facts. Lastly, you might want to italicize the phrase in potentially harmful or dysfunctional ways, just so it stands out to refer to. This country U. S. A. is more full of pussies and liars than it ever has been, thanks in large part to the allied mental health professions, present company excepted. And they’re bad liars, man.

  • That should say, and I can’t edit:

    that someone acquainted with and respectful of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm would understand

    There is no hidden innuendo in the reference, I promise, it is my first thought for what would not be polite and nice, going against the moral lessons of youth in spirit, negatively. It is slightly humorous, but it might matter if you got the royalties, huh? Sorry for my haste! Take it easy, F. A.

    American life has got lots and lots of simple remarks like that to show. Yours likewise count to me.

  • Francesca, True–my criticism is perhaps not everyone’s idea of constructive, but I can’t see it as impolite as stated. I think that you don’t understand that I can perfectly well see myself in Dr. Schroeder’s shoes. It’s important that I was moderated. I do feel, however that I was taking side someone acquainted and respectful of Rebecca from Sunnybrook Farm, if it came to that in explaining why I thought I had a right to speak up to that point. I sometimes experience delays in comprehension, whether due to my condition or psych drugs, is questionable. The sort that I mean, though, isn’t about IQ or how persons should be and relate. It’s that my cognition reflects functional brain deficits from maladjustment due to trauma, iatrogenic complications, my own constitutional make-up. No one has told me a thing like this, they have insisted that I express insight into the mental illness I have.
    Since I made an example from children’s literature above, please let me say again how much I respect and enjoy your Alice Munro, winner of the Nobel prize for (adult) literature. One thing you can say for the blog that Dr. S. posted is that everybody who read it had to think. Am I right?

  • Ola’ Paris – Previously, I guessed your heritage to have been engendered here, but looking at your webpage, maybe not, and I hope you are as lucky…The vortex over your standing drain potentially meaning as much. I hope all is well in your life and work and want to comment belatedly very briefly.

    I prefer Sartre’s statement that there is no non-human situation to mythic ones like Battista’s, that implicate the same thing. The value of the gesture implicit in the latter’s style of presentation isn’t itself a source of distraction for me, personally, although the conceptual reach seems not (to me) to exceed in application the force of the heady abstraction by which you begin us on your tour of the maelstrom of Being here. I mean the place where it got underway for me, your mentioning that we aren’t dynamically separable entities. But is this just internal realism some more? I thought of it as validating a God’s eye view rather than that or Putnamese. Thanks for your work.

  • Paris – Wow, the quintessential American steps forth in these lines. This is all very complex social criticism, and the spotlight you are shining creates targets well, and while the context you supply allows thoughts to wander, the partisan spirit–subdued, forthright–resumes in its appeal for cohesion in the development of goals, once you have walked us through the dimly lit spaces of the reality you describe. No kidding, pretty good.

  • Mark, Also, you aren’t involved in a genuinely medical enterprise, but a pseudo-medical one. So, since I didn’t need a doctor, if I were one of your charges, I wouldn’t like your bothering me all of the time. This isn’t some mere emotional reaction, and isn’t to be equated with disrespect. I would feel sure, I believe, that you had plenty of arrogance for overcoming disrespect shown to you in person, the arrogance of your mission, which included bothering me. Genuine dislike most of the time for your bothering me would be how I felt in the detention setting. The game you set-up with society at large, that natural social groups do well to exclude people who need to see a doctor keeps you in business.

  • Especially good what do we do about it section, Paris. I understand that some talking will work down deep in its patchwork way, and hope for Linda and her circle, but the notion that you have a self is invariably confused and misleading, as you know. So thanks for the extensive adaptation. While I still want to buy and read your book, your posts seem like excellent ice-breakers and re-visionings of assumed truths about unhappy personal existence coupled with reduced viablity in responsiveness and self-respect, therefore are and will continue to be ideal for sharing around with relations and family friends.

    (Healing professions weren’t my choice in life, but learning their purposes and limitations and flaws stayed full time work after initially seeking help. Thanks again.)

  • Paris – Thanks for your recommendation of and qualification realtive to the story linked above. I don’t need to see lots of that. My debate about how to see what you were going to say here, went from coin toss to accepting the rule of chronology. I’m glad I know enough to see the abusrdity of this woman’s eventual belief system. To say “reconstructing my self” is confused, it’s patent Catersianism, widespread and malign in its effects. Only in analogy to the way stage actors will sometimes goof on each other to force an inappropriate laugh could you think of this as serviceable English, as it could similarly be employed by variously friendly and competitive academic philosophers each trying to be first to publish their theoretical take on self and its experience in the world. She cannot have anything like a clear idea of reconstructions of self if this has not meant to her clearly reconstruction of myself, the last syllable stressed. So whatever you say will surpass what the moral of this story was, and I feel sorry for thousands and millions of people all over again, as much as ever. But believe me, I’ll follow through in logical ways.

    Thanks again for staying on the hook for us, best wishes with your pursuits and projects.

  • Daniel, I just was looking back here to see what my come next for this aspect of moderation and expectation of univocality. Because Robert Whitaker is not getting involved in each discussion, and since he’s like a nuts and bolts guy about getting a panoply of activities in working order, we have the moderation here.

    That means censorship and certain prevalence of preconceptions about what fits in and works to serve given well-intended purposes right. I was not interested in what was nasty or nice but what use you had put your gut reaction to. Was it final product enough to persuade or stimulate the unexpected. I thought its power kind of dried up that way. People of all sorts have to be drawn out and fully led to novel considerations of social standards, because lack of political awareness prevails in daily life here. I haven’t yet, but look forward to seeing how you tried to do that in your film.

  • Dr. Hickey, I can’t get used to how obvious it is that psychiatrists willingly only care if they have control over people and now and then feel pained by criticism, caring nothing about how their field is situated and served by other disciplines.

    “Well I don’t know how this comes out at Stanford or Oxford, but we like to say 20 mg no matter what.” They think thoughts like this will sound impressively authoritative.

    “When I am picking my nose and think about autistic genes it seems central to care.” They give the impression of this mode of decision.

    “Let me say he over-states the problem after being implausible, that looks humble.” They innocently and blithely surmise.

  • Note to wileywitch (fyi) – Your first comment was very moving. I appreciate your wit, as well, at all costs. My words when talking crazedly feel about right, and when listing big names in academic research pertinent to psyhciatry and human relations, I imagine it seems mundane and off-track for the expected comment. But with the exception of Josef Parnas and Thomas Fuchs, this is just about all the movers and shakers, and the phenomenology leastwise counts. My point is that Walt-baby knowingly means to trivialize psychiatries promotional schemes by simplistic reference to “behaviorism” some way. I am sure you realize as much. But I was doing it for myself, like W-baby did for himself, and don’t care about his stupid trip.

    Lastly, these are all pretty mannerly folk that I take looks at, but they all care about the future almost exclusively. I care about whose dying today. Keep your thunder and ignore jerky Walt.

  • OK, Walt, in case you looked it’s Zahavi, Dan with them phenomenologists and you could add Uriah Kriegel. But the neuroscientists who aren’t citing Bennet and Hacker must still be out to lunch, right?

    I hope you can tell that you have not yet added substance to the discussion, just your name which we will all promise to recognise. And thank you for thanking Dr. Hickey, and for paying your taxes, and for keeping your hair? Congratulations on your degree and facebook skills.

  • Nothing works exactly like this resource. If I had had to put with a subtle and correct diagnostic procedure, it still would have been for the benefit of the doctor, and it would still be civil rights and malfeasance in psychiatry overall that my life centered on. There would not by very much to thank the physician for who saved me from wolves that he didn’t stop from ruining my and everybody else’s opportunities to face things without them around. But if something as convenient as this had been around fifteen years ago, and if David Healy had been all in with his protests and critique, or if I’d understood how to draw together what was already there, I’d still have my kind, smart sister.

    Definite chances to ease the worry and reduce emotional pain come together here and through the Internet, really. In the daily life in my situation I still want to see the law and politics make a break for better than paternalism and deception.

  • So I mean that it is right for someone who got fooled into the disease doctrine to happen on these conversations–my writing went into tthe ditch.

    Also, in saying medical cause, I intend the iatrogenic or the putative and undetectable difference in neurological functioning, everything about which guesses scares naturally until you see that psychiaty is not medicine except for scripts.

  • Since the topic has to do with how my life got affected, I want to suggest that everyone’s going on about the possible answers and the essential lines of inquiry, the research and experiential understanding shared, feels right for keeping people who happen onto the discussion from getting fooled into over-reacting by whatever seemed like an emotional trigger to them. All of the worry about “having a mental illness” and “getting treated” for same develops in an already schizophrenic socio-cultural mix, made up mostly of bad information and wrong ideas.

    I think Laura Delano’s story shows that there can’t be anything like the entirely independent of social expectations onset of frightening, anomolous distressing, mental states–no less, emotional disturbance of multiple varieties. Breggin says the obvious in Toxic Psychiatry about overwhelming patients with the procedures of hospitalization and pressures and extending 302s to generate compliant attitudes: that this causes PTSD. He says the believable about PTSD (which he identifies as the most helpful description in the DSM), that it can onset many, many years after the dangers and/or aggressions that set someone up for it. When the mostly unsuspecting victim of treatment feels his expression freeze into a stare as the ambulance pulls up next door, or the person who hasn’t yet figured out what’s happened to her notices the strange all-pervasive tingle of hyperarousal, if they already were versed in the social and medical causes of their condition, they might keep from freaking out.

    That’s the chance that everyone needs. I like how Chys Muirhead and Paris Williams both work from this angle, too. Just as lives could get saved from Monica Cassini relentlessly warning to taper off psych drugs slowly, they can get saved by planting the seed of reminding what the thing is that psychiatry never will do for them. Talk them through the pain and ask how it’s going from there.

  • waltinseattle is a caught up in myths of his own, and doesn’t mean his support if that entails something like reparations for the sloppy application of nifty, attention-getting constructs to populations who consist of live patients, not at all attended to like they are full of contents that must be sifted through to arrange their pertinent aspects along the differential diagnostic spectrum. He lacks the strenuous control over his imagination to keep from going down blind alleys about the most florid of delusions…. And here too he will have all the answers, whether or not in question form. Who does he keep up with? Which cheerleaders? George Graham and Bill Fulford? The phenomenologists Gallagher and Zawawi and Ratcliffe? The down on it with genes Dominic Murphy? I think whoever he share his marvellings with that he must also have become entranced with the invitation to psychiatrists to play philosopher of science that Al Francis moderated in the run-up to the DSM-5. This is only serious criticism of the industry in the minds of he and brave Tom.

  • Dr. Hickey, I saw you considerate reply some previous day, and still mean to read the thread to this article before moving ahead to the most recent post that you have worked so hard to churn out in keeping up the demanding times. Also, the release of angry emotions that informed my initial comment above, what you know to cal postponed affect, along with reading the highly supportive archived first post of Paris Williams, has apparently allowed me to take steps in my recovery process. So I want to respond to your reply forthwith and adjust my remarks, in light of your helpful redirection.

    Their untenable position must bear mostly on the attempts to gain from further exploitation of their proclaimed intentions to work as patient advocates, or at least that seems central to their growing difficulty with self-justification given the level of negative outcomes for their services.
    I can’t see more accurate words for than cheap and shabby for how they mean to consign to the dustbin their failures to date, actually. At other times different adjectives came first, though.

    It isn’t always that the doctors and doctors’s helpers I’ve met started their day intending to wreak havoc on civil and human rights. But in my clearest memory, only one incident stands out in which I saw a patient attack, literally, anyone, and I lived through one unsuccessful attempt directed at me. The first happened in a private room, where the smaller patient standing uncertainly in a cast from foot and ankle to above the knee struck out in annoyance on being forced to participate in health checks, brought a perfectly justifiable anger reaction from the larger attendant, who severely scolded him. Partly, because he had barely to adjust himself to have successfully escaped the breeze of this near miss of a rude light tap, and partly because the psych tech was an Ecstasy head and seemed to have conserved some natural polite restraint despite the substance experimentation, that was the extent of it.

    But I have seen numerous barely legal, questionably legal, unsafe, and ill-considered physical attacks on patients, most motivated by pre-existing animosity. There is no way that force should be thought potentially compatible with therapeutic change. How could the change become anything like therapeutic until the person overcomes the effects of the force on their own some other place, some other time and way. The people who defend this type of “care” are not the brightest folks, no matter how far or high they got so far in their career. Menninger, for example, left something to posterity, sent his mea culpa to Szasz, but how minimal is the efficacy entailed by that?

  • Francesa– On a newer post than this, I see that you are still holding strong to your focus on terms and the abuse of them and misplaced emphasis in discussing them at certain times versus others that you seem to think helps out survivors cause.

    By this time, you must have seen Dr. Moncrieff’s last article and the rundown on the serous limitation associated with referring to mental disorders, Francesca, haven’t you? And you also are sure that you are a Szaszian’s natural opponent. But how could we be sure? Dr. Szasz’s first degree was in some branch of then current physics, later he went to medical school. He presented very elaborate and detailed arguments for the position that he took in order to, for instance, get the most needed reforms introduced into psychiatry at first opportunity. Although he obviously gets hung up on the meanings of words in many places in his books, he nonetheless sufficiently maintained his challenge up until his death. He provoked Al Francis to reveal his own philosophical extremism, you could say, as late as the critical discussions that led up to the publication of the DSM-5. They were invited to face each other in scholar-like debate. Al Frances is not one of those, and he means to hold forth in the style of a crypto-apologist for whatever orthodox psychiatry needs to thrive.

    Most apparently, to know whether you did or did not reject Szasz in reality, you have to consider your engagement with his analyses, and many things besides vested interest affect your take on such critiques, right Francesca? But the vested interest that rules the day is what makes for the most trouble with the abuse of terms and statements that works to the detriment of survivors and self-identified patients for life. Obviously. So someone can get their understanding squared away and be for, against, or neither for nor against a stated position, and they could certainly waffle and change their mind. But in addition, announcing their decision could result from their lack of knowledge, simple error or lack of correct guidance for interpreting arguments, or from judging their beliefs at a basically premature stage.

    It is hard to see that you come in nowhere closer to the mark on the problem with langauge by just wanting the inauthentic character of Dr. Schoeder’s assertions in replies, here. Should we just expect you to keep missing the essential problem of non-patient acvocates pretending to take both sides?

  • Stephen — Nicely stated. Please keep letting us in on your developing notion of advocacy and real potentials for positive treatment effects. They’re worth the time and effort. I still doubt the need for anything but voluntary assignment and more freedom to choose your lifestyle, backed by good information on just how we were meant to have peace. I sense that Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, if not Lincoln himself, would have thought it better to have War on Prohibition and Fraud. But I’m just some nut.

  • Fred – I am glad to see that you don’t care if I believe you, but I do believe that you believe you and that you’re allowed– And I might be convinced of some of these edicts power and worth, as far as my experience informs me.

    So, in line with the total ideas offered up, what about some nuance on the doctors reasons for acting to benefit robber barons? I see that possibly, but not exclusively. Frequently it has to be the case that they mean to sustain the military, deliberately saddling the men (and women these days) with their confrontation with Destiny. (In fact, when you keep women in every equation regarding power and freedom you get the clearer picture of history and race, correct? And in this country race has the political dimension of its significance functionally and rhetorically sustained, whether coming or going. What about folks on the short side of their Native American heritage? How would that do for polite and comfortable Anglo and, most def., Catholic ladies and fellas?)

    I don’t want to distract you about this, but as far as the matters of authority governing doctors’s intentions, it has never not been their focus to subserve the status quo and solidify their professional dominion in service of themselves. David Healy is remindingthem gently but firmly that they aren’t doing this right.

  • Corinna – I find it very proud of you and humble at the same time to make this tribute for Ken, your friend and ally. Of course, your poem deserves separate comments, since so much can fail unexpectedly in these difficult efforts, but yours works and you should keep it and pull from it for further hope and understanding, I think. Thank you and condolences–

  • Hi on a Wednesday, Rossa–

    Hopefully, You are subscription-ready…Clearly, from your blogposts and this comment, you have devoted your time and energy to work on yourself and are not dualistic, for at least the majority of your conscious moments. I wish you congratulations and warm gratitude in response for that–What an accomplishment.

    I would love to see your take on the psych industries’ going game of terms, like appropriate, resiliency, controlling, letting go–all of which it is bad at in self-application during professional tasks, since it defaults to non-patient advocacy given the slightest hitch, if not by constant intent, from academia forward. Since Paris (Dr. Williams, psychologist with lived experience) found purpose in fleshing out the basics of how non-dualistic approaches might count prevailing explanatory regimentations, I have gotten started on his archive. More so, since he strikes me as born and bred, decidedly the patient advocate variety of care provider.

    You have the unique strength in the ability to see through the process of communication in all its immediacy, I gather, to not let your attitude function with any type of default mechanism so that support and advocacy flow out of you according to need and not type or label attached to individual persons. Thanks for the opportunity you are creating.

    Nevertheless, regarding Paris’s project, I don’t believe it will get wheels until neuroscientific results can be regimented in order to force biological psychiatry to admit that schizophrenia is nothing like a disease, and that it is a mythic construct and always was and they knew it. Our job on the side of patient advocacy is to get ready to settle for nothing less than that whole enchilada. For non-patient advocacy, we have David Healy and what more do crybabies want?

  • Thoughts about Steve’s considerations. Getting your self-understanding clear has important place in open forum. I think that it is good that you would want to try making a stand as a scientist against forced treatment. That change would mean that you had become a patient advocate. That would be a tranformation.

    Then it would be good if you blogged here, good for offsetting the influence of non-patient advocates who blog here, who don’t want the term popularly seen to apply to themselves. Who gladly keep the postings hung up on linguistic tussles. Who restrict some portion of the blogposts to grow-up show and tell. Like Dr. Mark Ragins, and most lately psychologist Jim Schroeder. Also, reform-minded survivors entertain straightforward notions of non-patient advocacy as a comfortable way of adding to their image as recovered, particularly once they are for reform as workers in the system like yourself. Akin to reformed smokers, hold-outs at a march on Washington, or self-appointed FCC “alternatives” like the parental advisory council on lyrics. You’re more worth hearing from, in fact, Steve, since you are more nearly explicit about your convictions.

    Clearly, at this stage, though, you still are inexplicitly or tacitly a non-patient advocate whose sympathies are guided by educated perception and enlightened self-interest. So it could go either way with you still. Please just don’t become less explicit, as you are good to hear from and may serve as a worthy foil at times because you are not prone to antagonism. Obviously, the “anti-abolitionists” wish they hadn’t such a tendency since it gives them away.

  • Hi Mary — I hope you stay linked up for replies, while confessing that I don’t. But my schedule allows me to come back to check on things.

    I wanted to stop back at Mr. Schroeder’s blogsite pretty much to offer you appreciative feedback. Going into the comments section let me see the details of your personal story of surviving. Well, it is singularly motivational and inspiring.

    After this particular post about validating labels, I bothered to download a sample chapter from a current college introductory text in abnormal psychology. Of course, if you wanted to justify your repressive determinations and discourteous approach, you could certainly refer selectively to that typical swath of faithful and doctrinaire guidelines. Alternatively, you could read it for tailoring your methods of how to start frowning and learning to say bad about abnormal, once you saw how that could help you ease up in your professional life. For good measure, you could add on by saying abnormal about bad. Then you could go ahead and proudly take yourself home in a roundly superior frame of mind.

    But normal is bad in these professions. I’m sure these authors and editorial advisors who offer up their views on the state of the art in this case would go out of their way to deny that their book can’t also be useful for informing grassroots critiques of extreme medicalization and unwelcome pandering to patient non-advocacy groups like NAMI and MHA. But it couldn’t help really. You do have to come all the way across to Bruce Levine and Phil Hickey and Joanna Moncrieff to get facts about facts.

  • Believing in the disease conception is all too tempting. How many would-be surviviors go no further from the revolving door of repeat admissions because of it? It’s a factor in most.

    It’s so simplistic that I almost succumb to self-condemnation with it lighting the way to such defeatism. When the emotional struggle is worst, another round of truth about it is vital.

    It does so much damage to people’s self-understanding, and inspires no further efforts at taking responsibility and caring for yourself. Still, it’s just the means to an end, the way to discredit a manufactured class of rejects, so that psychiatry doesn’t have to solicit business and the courts don’t have to bother with a chunk of the nation’s rights.

    It doesn’t just feel that way, it works that way.

  • Hi Francesca — I read your letter to the editor there, too, and found it without blemish. I just re-read it and re-read the article up to the twirpy analogy about getting your brain fixed or replace with a better model or something. I just react to that with an “oh” and chalk it off that another person who’s no genius at all thinks I don’t have brains, thinks he’s got himself well under control, and knows how to lecture the public and the professions who will not listen at all except to take advantage of the need.

    The only realistic expectation involves staunch skepticism in these matters. Please see my post to Someone Else below if you get back around to this reply to you. I study the academic community conversations and they are no better than the media and the typcial mall. So I am a Left-hating liberal for good.

  • Right, man. I don’t know where the science is. But you also can’t find out. Not in a straightforward way, anyhow. The results are flatly stated in ideological terms. Research goals that suggest major problems for the existing professional careproviders are not the usual ones that survive a round of picks when the projects seem do-able.

    Everybody who hasn’t tried like mad to get away from mainstream behavioral healthcare after figuring out how to do better on their own, and found out what that puts you up against, just takes it easy about the essential issues unless they lose someone they loved, it seems–or come to believe they might.

  • OK, good morning. Copy Cat — I put a question to you on Brogan’s blog entry, but if it’s out of the question to search your memory banks, not a problem. I was also wondering how you got started on this direction. You may have said so and I read your posts now whenever running across them. My interest is what got the ball rolling beyond prevailing mood of dissatisfaction with the care on offer.

    For myself, confidence that I was right that they were not onto anything in a way beneficial to me, never waned. The worry was that something worse left unexamined in the data set would come alive to haunt me. So I want to know if some particular facts or something more instinctual is what you feel led you to this lucky place. No survey being conducted, still trying to do myself good, though.

  • Ron – We are thrusting past each other, in significant measure, but can abide the result of clarification.

    When you stated that government or its involvement weren’t the sources of abusiveness for mental health interventions, that pretty much connotes to me that you think that the various psych industries’ having extra-judicial authority backed by various lobbying activities doesn’t mean much to the imbalance of power that leads to abuses. But you explain further that that isn’t the implication you had in mind. We arrive at a definite terminus in the issue.

    Additionally: Not a religious problem in sight. That there are these special extra-judicial powers enabling forced treatment and detention and types of defamation and obstruction of real justice is as much a fact as that abuses do happen.

    These two social facts are hardly isolated from each other, however. You could have many different and arguably more happening opportunities to reduce abuses of power and authority in therapeutic situations if there wasn’t the sanction of government in place for punitive restraint that there is.

    I think it’s “arguably more” to the good if we lop off psychiatry’s extra-judicial authority, tons better in regards to effectiveness of reconstructing the mental health paradigm, and believe that that is probably right to think. If you claim that the present legal sanctions afforded the current professional racket for providing mental health services contribute nothing to systemic abuses, we disagree profoundly–since that just is not a reliable description of things in reality.

    On politics, meanwhile, I just am more “with” freedom and rights than with censorship and control.

    On Peter’s great written expose’, and on how appalling his story is, there is no question. I believe that saying there should be a law against what he got himself into and how he got misled isn’t the right first or final step in keeping the thing from happening to someone’s dislike and loss of wellbeing. And it should be a public and ongoing contention that this form of terapy is the more malignant option in most, if not all, respects.

    If there were two psychiatries, one that allows much intervention and one that allows no such thing as detention, ECT, forced interrogations called therapy, then we could proceed to inform everyone to love themselves as they are and possibly make great strides at it. Another fairly instructive Thomas Szasz idea.

    I was originally likwise misled into thinking it was safe and relatively needed to consult mainstream psychiatry. I disagree with how easy it remains to promote this notion when the industries won’t take on the damage and error they are to blame for or unequivocally denounce the intentional steps that led to the abuse and harm or to covering it up.

    I think that it probably was the case that being too hard on myself allowed abuses of authority, neglect and withholding of therapy (worthwhile talking cures) in my own case. The label and getting a show of gratitude from me for the removal of my freedom. I could find nothing out from consulting professionals that satisfactorily did me any good.

    To me it looks like the behavioral healthcare professions both warn you not to be too hard on yourself and change up the approach if that is something characteristic of you to get you on their side for making a buck or having extraordinary say in social matters. They do it as religiously as can be done.