Friday, December 6, 2019

Comments by NewGenTime

Showing 3 of 3 comments.

  • From GGGreen:

    “…She made it rather impossible for me to develop any trust in her. When I questioned her routine rejection of me attempting to discuss my past she repeatedly told me that DBT doesn’t address the client’s past and only works with the present moment. Insert eye roll here. I kept asking her how she was going to help me if she wouldn’t allow me to tell her anything about my past. She just kept telling me to “stay in the moment.” Insert another eye roll here. I was basically treated as non-compliant every session, both with her and in the group because I had serious questions about what they were doing. ”

    Talking about DBT and its denial of people’s lives as a prerequisite for acceptance. How can anyone by promoting research where the subjects were treated in this manner — somehow connect it to something that anyone would consider less than manipulative? Since when did Mad In America tolerate this sort of journalism? Why in the world would a system that promotes bad science in bio-psychiatry and toxic medicines think they would find better fidelity in research on “behavior modification” of folks diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder which is the most stigmatizing diagnosis right after sociopathy, and child molester?

    How anyone can even begin to try these sorts of diagnostic exploits when each of the criteria for BPD can otherwise be explained by trauma, and otherwise is completely without any sort of required trauma screening. DBT has, since its beginnings been accepted because it was a way to deal with the Borderline problem… IE “an agency’s worst clients” who are frequently borderlined as a matter of rote.

    Take a common harm or retraumatization by the system… consider annoying behaviors and assumptions about attachment and BPD clients’ “clinginess”, take a person deeply traumatized by extreme abandonment or betrayal and give them a diagnosis that basically says that you must keep the person at arms length, avoid entanglements, and isolate them in limited session therapy, … and you are harming someone in the exact way that they have been harmed by their formative environment, essentially trying to cure a broken arm by stepping on it with enough force to break it again. This makes the case for the WHO studies that have people recovering in third world countries at higher rates where there is no mental health system.

    Wake up, Mad in America! A little less cheerleading for pseudo-science please, the back story at Marsha Linehan’s Borderline Academy is what should be told before one assumed that suicide is not more probably at higher rates… which would be found in the earliest untracked groups at the University of Washington hospital complex. Find one of those people and ask them how much their experience is at variance with GGGreen here.

  • The author of the research underestimates the adversity here… the abuse CAN, in fact, go on forever, and it is one of a number of processes in our culture and medical regime that sustains itself precisely because people lack professional accountability for their profession’s failures while all the time insisting that expertise will solve people’s problems and they are the ones with this expertise. The model has given us a minimum of 150 years of bad science, flawed analysis, terrible abuses and liberties with the idea of cause and effect, and lastly, such a disregard for the patients and their right to life that they have electrocuted them and stuck ice picks and knives into their brains to disable what they term “negative symptoms.”

    This horror, despite it categorically indicting the incompetence of this profession, has not resulted in their removal, it has generated instead a successively more insidious “expert” regime of drugs and rationalizations to end the lives and brain functions of “their clients” (sic) … and do so even more legitimately and do so in a way largely accepted by the public and many of the patients themselves. Add to this behavior modification and the creation of etiologies based on creation of “behavior objects” and things like gas-lighting, the invalidation of perception and thought, and encouraging the belief that problems require expert intervention based on flawed diagnostics… and no, it is a long way from being over. If over at all. Psychiatry can read too… and even the most well meaning are unable to keep from invalidating and intervening with persons who they have no business judging, must less subjecting to their idea of a “cure.” It is possible they will find new or less toxic drugs, though it is less likely they will find a different institutional social role that does not entitle them as experts to solve “problems” of others, with the various forms of coercion — fear, force, fraud (false science, rationalization, or outright lying to the client to gain compliance), or … friendship (exploiting the trust of those seeking help). Even with results that have a recovery rate that is less than societies that have *no* psychiatric systems at all… we still lack the scientific and humanitarian will to throw off the regime of experts who are the anti-thesis of medicine’s Hippocratic Oath of “do no harm”…

  • One think mentioned by the NCIL person above… outpatient commitment is a violation of Olmstead. I think the national advocacy has missed this, as the US DOJ has actively been forcing states to get people who are ready to go out of the hospital… they are using the Delaware settlement as a model and there is an agreement with New Hampshire coming up that is supposed to be useful also.

    The thing that they are replacing institutional treatment with in these settlements and recommendations to states in the form of memorandums of agreement to avoid a DOJ lawsuit, is to increase ACT which includes the use of coercion in its fidelity scale. National advocates, thinking the Olmstead battle is already won, have missed that ACT is a staple of the recommended care when people are taken out of institutions.

    Just one aspect, mentioned just about here, is if you mandate drugging in the community (or the hospital) the current research estimates that 40% of the causes of premature death are a result of the medications or their health complications. This essentially means that you are involuntarily subjecting someone to a 4 in 10 chance of early death by forcing them to take psych drugs against their will.

    This is more than an civil rights issue. Evidence based practices are a joke. Simply look at the history of psychiatry… rejecting ice baths, lobotomies, electro shock and any number of other forms of treatment in the past would have been rejecting the “evidence base” of past generations of Doctors who got it absolutely wrong… including the Nazi style eugenics laws that allowed sterilization of the “enfeebled” up until the early 1070″s. (!) I appreciate that Whittaker has tried to show the scientific errors of the current regime, however, the profession and culture as a whole has not made a system that is accountable for what it acts on without any real knowledge. The damages for this are human beings lives… and it should not be lost on people that the absolute refusal to participate in their applied subjective analytics, would have kept a lot of people alive and very much free of the invasion of their biological integrity or human rights.

    In Oregon we have started preliminary meetings to address the force issue with the US DOJ here, we hope someone nationally will bring the issue to someone’s attention in Washington DC

    drake