My research shows that the neuroleptics were from the beginning a chemical lobotomy, which worked the same as the previous surgical lobotomy (the one for which Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize) but had fewer side effects, so they replaced the surgical lobotomy with neuroleptics. The idea was to restrain the dangerous madman, and that was all. All the rest of the “help and treatment” envelope is a false envelope, the aim of which was to raise the status of psychiatry, the profits of pharmaceutical companies, and perhaps also the political propaganda of governments that prefer to argue that their laws on compulsory psychiatric practices lead to helping people, and not simply to tame dangerous individuals like you do with criminals.
No wonder that neuroleptics (antipsychotics) do harm in the long run, since they cause atrophy and damage in the frontal lobe and basal ganglia. A person with a damaged brain obviously becomes less able. Someone may say that he had this brain damaged before, since he was “mentally ill”. Even so, causing further damage can of course only reduce performance.
Call it what you like, but if you have communication problems, lack some necessary social skills, and end up being rejected by all people because that’s what it does, that’s a problem.
Psychiatry, at least here, does not pretend that there are drugs for it, but this people are regularly calmed down with neuroleptics, probably often because they cannot stand being rejected by others.
I’ve read that endogenous depression may be caused by impaired communication between neurons. And that would work for me, because MAO inhibitors have an effect on me, and they increase the level of all neurotransmitters, and neurons need all not only serotonin to communicate.
Society seems to have an attitude towards seriously mentally ill as to criminals and wants them to be effectively pacified, and the rest do not interest them, and neuroleptics fulfill this task.
My research shows that the neuroleptics were from the beginning a chemical lobotomy, which worked the same as the previous surgical lobotomy (the one for which Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize) but had fewer side effects, so they replaced the surgical lobotomy with neuroleptics. The idea was to restrain the dangerous madman, and that was all. All the rest of the “help and treatment” envelope is a false envelope, the aim of which was to raise the status of psychiatry, the profits of pharmaceutical companies, and perhaps also the political propaganda of governments that prefer to argue that their laws on compulsory psychiatric practices lead to helping people, and not simply to tame dangerous individuals like you do with criminals.
No wonder that neuroleptics (antipsychotics) do harm in the long run, since they cause atrophy and damage in the frontal lobe and basal ganglia. A person with a damaged brain obviously becomes less able. Someone may say that he had this brain damaged before, since he was “mentally ill”. Even so, causing further damage can of course only reduce performance.
Call it what you like, but if you have communication problems, lack some necessary social skills, and end up being rejected by all people because that’s what it does, that’s a problem.
Psychiatry, at least here, does not pretend that there are drugs for it, but this people are regularly calmed down with neuroleptics, probably often because they cannot stand being rejected by others.
I’ve read that endogenous depression may be caused by impaired communication between neurons. And that would work for me, because MAO inhibitors have an effect on me, and they increase the level of all neurotransmitters, and neurons need all not only serotonin to communicate.
Society seems to have an attitude towards seriously mentally ill as to criminals and wants them to be effectively pacified, and the rest do not interest them, and neuroleptics fulfill this task.