Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Comments by cabrogal

Showing 5 of 5 comments.

  • “That the relationship between self-concealment and suicidality is ‘partially explained by unmet personal needs in a non-clinical sample of young adults'” sounds reasonable to me, especially if you consider the links between bullying and youth suicidality and how that might effect capacity to reveal inner turmoil and seek support. But I’d guess there’s causal relationships in both directions.

    Revealing suicidality is stigmatising and likely to result in disempowerment and unwanted (and potentially harmful) medical attention. You can make a lot of rights disappear with the magic words “danger to oneself”. School children are under increasing surveillance for ‘signs’ of suicidality and mental illness (Hogge and Blankenship may have some experience of this). By and large they aren’t stupid. It would be a bit surprising if a lot of them aren’t concealing needs and feelings that might be interpreted as symptoms of something.

  • I find this review encouraging.

    I suspect we’re seeing a response to the steadily increasing outcry against gamed RCTs in which trials aren’t pre-registered and drug companies farm out a large number of small trials; relying on publication bias to ensure the ones that find their way into journals are the ones that are ‘successful’ purely by chance. Then a meta-analysis comes along, only finds the ‘successful’ ones, lumps them all together and viola, p<0.05; a significant positive result.

    These days meta-analysts are doing more checking for publication bias (e.g. scattergram the effect size on X, the sample size on Y and if your Bell curve is truncated on the left you've got biased data) and the old tricks are fooling fewer people. So now we're seeing larger studies with weaker results.

    We've still got a long way to go before the reputation of RCTs is rehabilitated but it's a start.

  • From what I have read it’s psycho-state is far worse than ours.

    There’s swings and roundabouts.

    On one hand we don’t have insurance plan driven hospitalisation that provides incentives to keep someone locked up until their coverage expires, so by and large, forced hospital stays tend to be shorter if you haven’t been accused of a criminal offence.

    On the other hand, here in NSW (where Woy Woy is) the usual mantra for tossing you into a loony bin – “danger to oneself or others” – is deliberately left undefined in legislation, with guidelines suggesting it includes danger to your finances, reputation or relationships.

    For a colleague with a bipolar diagnosis what this meant is that when he was feeling energetic, buoyant and chatty and wanted to go out and talk to people, but his mother was afraid he’d embarrass himself and the family unless he stayed home until he was mordant, fatigued and almost mute again, she called his former psychiatrist. As a result he was handcuffed and bundled into the back of a police wagon on the main street of his small town right out front of the store where he bought his groceries in full view of friends, neighbours and acquaintances. He spent the following weeks in a locked ward many miles from home without his closest friends knowing where he was.

    That’s how the NSW Mental Health Act protects the reputation and relationships of those with a mental illness label.

  • Hi Anthony.

    Like you I’m a voice hearer from Woy Woy (are you related to my WWH class of ’79 classmate Neil Murray?).
    Like you I’m interested in Buddhism and am very skeptical of Scientology.
    I’m also a member of a Sydney based social justice activist group that specialises in trying to address the human rights abuses perpetrated under the Australian mental health system.

    If you want to contact me to open a dialogue leave a comment on my blog (about anything you like – ‘Hi’ will do). That will give me your email address and I’ll be in touch.