Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Comments by MiG

Showing 32 of 32 comments.

  • Hi B, hi Fiachra,

    I did not have the time to research this, but I would not be surprised if the so-called negative symptoms of “Schizophrenia” became more prevalent in the official psychiatric “diagnostic” scheme during the time the first-generation major tranquilizers began to take hold as the “first-line” treatment option for “Schizophrenia” in the early 1950s.

    Yet another instance of re-labeling so-called adverse effects of drugs as “symptoms” of a “mental disease”. Apart from the fact that the whole schizophrenia-concept (1908, Eugen Bleuler) was originally primarily based on a then unknown virus infection of the CNS, encephalitits lethargica – turned ‘dementia praecox’ turned “schizophrenia”… and now, over a century later, the schizophrenic ghost of Christmas Past ist still with us – how did this happen?

    Britta

    p.s.
    B, hope you don’t mind the ‘Du’. 🙂 Haste das Buch von Strate zum Mollath-“Fall” schon gelesen? Good stuff, me thinks.

  • Hi there AddyTeen,

    I do not think that anyone (here at MIA) disputes or calls into question the existence and “realness” of your, and others’, experiences, as you indirectly hinted at by writing:

    you should know the experiences shared among millions are real indeed – AddyTeen

    Of course your experiences are real, otherwise you wouldn’t experience them, and there would be nothing whatsoever to talk about… 🙂

    So, why would you (want to) think of your very own experiences, of your life, of your way of living your life as an illness, as a disease, a “manifestation” or “expression/symptoms” of an illness, a disease – so-called ADHD?

    Britta

  • exederin,

    You wrote
    JAMA Sept 9, 2009 on pathways of dopamine is just one additional source of data confirming what those who have it keep repeating.
    How about switching the drug regimen for those who “have” ADHD from stimulants to so-called anti-psychotics, then? Those ADHD people are in serious need of having their basic want/do not want-system – a.k.a. ‘pathways of dopamine’ – sabotaged and tampered with. Surely, these people can and should be “helped” to reach their full potential, in life, and beyond…

    This study included 53 adults who never used stimulants.
    Whoops, overwhelmingly representative study evidence… 53 adults, all in all, and these 53 adults never used stimulants, maybe they did not attend kindergarten, either, who knows?

  • David,

    This is how I read your comment, and for that matter, Timothy Kelly’s blog post:
    Yes, a perspective such as ‘We (as) human beings construct so-called reality (Wirklichkeit) as we perceive that same so-called reality and vice versa’ might be “helpful” in obfuscating the human rights issues, or much better: the ongoing human rights violations, at hand.

    Exactly, we are, or should be talking about, structural violence. For me, this structural violence is epitomized by (biological) psychiatry as we know it, because ID could not get any more simplistic, even if “we” tried to imagine otherwise.

    So, apart from engaging in heavy philosophical and epistemic relativism your – and Timothy’s – point is…?

  • Again, I am dumbfounded by the results of the research referred to in this news item. Apparently, other fields of study – in addition to psychiatry – also engage in researching non-existent disease entitites, albeit in the form of ‘disorders’, imagine that.

    “The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is an “obstacle” that is preventing “a fruitful synthesis” between our neuro-biological and sociocultural understandings of the human mind and of psychological problems, […]

    In their conclusion, the researchers argued that the DSM is too “reductionist,” simplistic and scientifically “unreliable” and actually undermines rather than collaboratively incorporating advances in understandings of mental disorders that are occurring in other fields of study.”

  • blakeacake,

    So, in other words, your alleged ADHD supposedly enables you to hyper-focus on the confusion on your part generated by novelty, instead of the ‘nature’ and the content of that same novelty? Well yeah, definitely gotta take a pill to further enhance the confounding element to this effect.

    What is so interesting about ADHD is the way those who are afflicted with deficits attending can hyper- focus on those things that stimulate their interest. Confounding is another appropriate term. Just the novelty of a first interview with a health care professional for an assessment often masks the ADHD. Novelty often triggers the attending “apparatus” in our brains.” – blakeacake

    Please feel free to correct my reading of your comment, blakeacake, could very well be that the confusion is all mine, naturally.

    Britta

  • Scott, I don’t get it, I don’t get it at all:
    In what way do you or does your wholeness approach to all things ‘mental’ offer an alternative to psychiatric hospitalization, especially since you limit your services to adults “with no current safety issues”? The conceptualization of so-called safety issues draws at least heavily from or is even entirely based on the current paradigm of being ‘a danger to oneself and/or others caused by a supposed underlying disease or malfunctioning of some kind of the brain’ a.k.a. ‘mental disorder’ or ‘mental illness’.

    “This program provides a very real alternative to hospitalization for adults (over 18 years old) with no current safety issues. Psychiatric hospitalization is clearly the treatment of choice when a person presents with safety issues such as active suicidal ideation or a very disorganized psychosis. Most often psychiatric hospitalization amounts to an aggressive trial of multiple psychiatric medications without any assessment of underlying factors. Very little is done to empower the individual with new skills/interventions to manage stress, diet, sleep, metabolic, genetic or related concerns.”

    Apparent quote from your website, provided by Monica Cassani:
    “Assessment of genetic profile as it relates to mental health”

    Say what?

    (Btw, your web server currently throws a 500 error when trying to open the page *Integrative Psychiatric Intensive Program* from the link above in your blog.

    Britta

  • Happy Birthday, Monica (and many happy returns of the day)! And thank you very much for this wonderful gift of yours:

    “That which watches and experiences our lives in these bodies does not age. […] Life is wondrous by its very nature, fully fit or not. Healing for me has become focused on becoming one with this flow that I might serve others and the planet and all of life too. This, it has become clear, can happen whether or not my body is functioning the way most people expect their bodies to work. The interesting paradox, of course, is that the more I surrender to this reality the healthier I get in every way.”

    More power & all the best to ya,
    Britta

  • Frank,

    I think I do get your main point (forced psychiatric incarceration and treatment IS torture without any basis whatsoever, legal or otherwise, indeed, and it needs to be abolished), and in my opinion there is an additional pathway to being dragged through this underworld, as you put it:

    —————————-
    Frank Blankenship:
    „Some of us came to the movement through psychiatric incarceration not through requesting an anodyne of some psychiatrist. We were given drugs we didn’t ask for, didn’t need, and that, in terms of adverse effects, dragged us through the underworld.“
    —————————-

    Some people – myself included – go and see their primary care physician because they hit, let’s say, a more than a rough spot/phase of some sort in their lives, NOT requesting an anodyne but to get help, as incredibly naive as that may sound, at least in retrospect. The general physician may refer one to a psychiatrist, well, you can very well imagine how the story might continue from there…

    Same difference to me, really. Personally, I cannot for the life of me get myself to argue (for myself) against psychiatry’s „diagnoses“ and „treatments“ from a disability perspective, for reasons I have outlined in my first comment to this website – not only because I am a sucker for cognitively and emotionally consonant arguments.

    Simultaneously, I allow cognitive and emotional dissonance to enter my mind with regards to fellow humans who, for whatever reasons, got sucked into the system for good, haha, because the status quo, a.k.a. the all-encompassing ‚therapeutic state‘ (including incarceration and forced treatment), as I understand it, from a legal standpoint can currently only be argued against from a UN human rights perspective.

    Britta

  • Frank & cannotsay2013,

    This whole discussion about ‚proud users‘ got me thinking, still unsure of what the two of you exactly mean by ‚shaming proud users‘ – and you do not have to answer this question, of course, since it is rhetorical in nature (the second time around in this thread :)) – so here goes:

    I am wondering, for example, if the same underlying „psychopathology“ could be „responsible“ for the fact that in a pair of sisters, one is a Hollywood and Broadway actress, while the other suffers from what psychiatry calls ‚bipolar disorder‘. (Think about – the Broadway production of – Billy Wilder’s ‚Sunset Boulevard‘, which was an initially confusing movie for many viewers because for the first time in film history, a story was told from the perspective of a dead man; enough of the movie trivia for now, already).

    Then again, the movie ‚A Beautiful Mind‘ offers some interesting and at least debatable points regarding the depiction of so-called Schizophrenia and its „treatment“, as not only John Nash himself has pointed out quite a few times in the years since the film’s production.

    And for a third and last thing for now, there is the former comedy partner (actor and author) of an actor portraying a doctor with a walking stick in an American prime time series, who apparently decided to finally ‚consent to‘ psychopharmacological „treatment“ of his ‚bipolar disorder‘, the latter of which was the subject of a (so-called) documentary, which in turn „happens“ to be available on youtube, by the way…

    Britta

  • E.Silly,

    As I see it, Mr. Glasser’s ‚Choice Theory‘ and the William Glasser Institute both offer a philosophically sound and refreshingly ideology-free approach to fundamental questions of living and life:

    That each and every one of us is ultimately responsible for her/his thoughts and actions, period. This also ties in closely with the concept of an individual and collective ‚conscience‘ as an agent of internal and positive control (because personally, I have a problem with the concepts of morality, morals and morale, since they are concepts and “devices” of external control).

    And yes, either buying into the concept of ‚mental illness‘ or refusing to do so, at the end of the day, is a choice, of course, as is equating William Glasser’s ‚Choice Theory‘ with a sect or cult posing as a religion in this particular instance.

    Britta

  • Frank, there are other, deeper factors at play here than direct to consumer advertising which should definitely be banned in my opinion as well – while it definitely contributes to the escalating in psychiatric drug prescription and use, is the way I see it.

    In Germany, for example, where direct to consumer advertising of medical drugs always was and still is illegal, the prescription and use of psychiatric drugs is escalating… direct to physician advertising, however, is legal in Germany, and boy, does the pharma-medical complex dig their claws into the „market“ of distressed people. Especially GPs, as the coordinators of their patients’ health, are targeted heavily in the form of articles on and courses in „How to screen for depression in your patients“ and the like… or consider respected medical journals with their „regular“ load of advertising, citing studies, proper scientific studies concerning „mental health issues and their treatment“ as it would seem…

    never even calling into question the 150 year old – and since then in its essence structurally identical – overall medical, therefore psychiatric and unspoken axiom that mental diseases are diseases proper.

    In addition to that, if those distressed people do not view themselves as „ill“, this take on their own situation is conveniently helped along by a heavily funded – and most of the time unwittingly so, I assume – PR machine whose carefully crafted „stories of mental illness and their treatment“ miraculously find their way into the mass media. Psychiatry in Germany is (in part) frowned upon, by non-psychiatric physicians and the general public alike; paradoxically, not so with regards to so-called psychosomatic medicine, which is the latest fad and of course nothing else than psychiatry in disguise, because it depends on ICD-10’s „disease entities“ for it to become a proper medical discipline.

    What I have found when talking about the supposed medical or rather non-medical status of psychiatry/psychosomatic medicine in general, is that even well-educated and content with their lives adults have a hard time taking it all in. Psychiatry being a proper medical discipline is something they grew up with, they are accustomed to… the mere thought of psychiatry not only not constituting a proper medical discipline at all, but also harming and killing people in unimaginable numbers seems to be an unbearable one. Mention psychiatry’s history with regards to the Holocaust, especially in Germany, and you are in for a rough ride, at best.

    Humor, though, helps to get the fundamental point across, at times. A friend of mine, being confronted with the idea that he should see a psychiatrist to „exclude“ psychogenesis of his difficulties with walking, remarked upon this suggestion by a neurologist as follows:

    „Since there are clear pathological changes in my head MRI, I am not going to talk with you or some psychiatrist about the notion of an ‚immaculate conception’ of any kind.“

  • I also agree with you, B.

    Of course, I can only speak for myself and of my own experiences, for me, after slowly but surely discovering the sheer extent of the lies I had been told by psychiatric practitioners by doing my own research on the matter, I went into a phase of blaming myself for what happened to me. Why did I turn to psychiatry – or so-called psychosomatic medicine, which only dresses up as something being separate from the entity of psychiatry, in my case – to get „help“ during a difficult phase in my life in the first place? And why did I choose to stay in that „hospital“, even though there were clear indicators that the whole enterprise was not at all going in a direction that seemed to be in the interest of my wellbeing, but rather the wellbeing of those „doctors“ (Neo-Freudians are particularly „interesting“ in this regard) and their needs, thoughts and feelings – especially relating to „diagnosis“, since as a general tendency, mental health practitioners in my experience seem to be completely unable to frame human distress and reactions to life and living conditions in any other fashion than as genetically caused brain diseases?

    What basically happened was that those „physicians“ – after interviewing me twice before the hospital stay proper (and yes, coming up with a preliminary/provisional „diagnosis“ of bipolar disorder because I, like apparently a third of all English 17th century poets, seem to be an ever so creative person) – came up with the utterly brilliant solution of watching me like a laboratory rat for four weeks, all the while neither listening to me nor talking to me, and if they did, treating me like a three year old, as if non-interaction and non-communication weren’t interaction and communication in and of themselves… I did not dare to mention my impression that if Kafka ever had written a play in his lifetime, that we were all acting it out ever so perfectly and absurdly – because if I had, my impression would only have served as „proof“ of my inability to reflect on myself and others, due to my supposed „mania“ and perceived „loosening of associations“… their apparent failure „to get me“ as a person, „to get“ the situation I was in at the time was my ‚fault‘, my ‚defect‘, naturally… talk about a self-fullfilling prophecy:

    http://beyondthepsychiatricbox.blogspot.de/p/talking-to-psychiatry.html

    There is enough shaming and blaming going on already, and one should not and cannot underestimate the power of an internal psychiatrist, once installed in your psyche, with the indispensable „help“ of external mental health practitioners, as a matter of due course, of course… so, for me, my personal recovery process started at the precise moment when I decided to tell my inner psychiatrist/physician for psychosomatic medicine/psychologist to get the hell outta my mind, to get lost, once and for all.

    Additional external shaming and blaming might contribute to heightened resistance in the shamed and blamed, not because of ‚truth‘ being told but because of an (initial) „failure“ to really grasp the true dimension of the fraud and harm „administered“ by psychiatry – to them, loved ones, friends, etc., perfectly disguised as a legitimate medical and scientific field, of all things…

    — Britta

  • In terms of overall psychology re the general public (including „proud“ and most of all potential „users“ of the current system, their families and friends) and „traditional“ (meaning medical model-oriented) mental health practitioners of any kind, what we are also up against here is a milder form of what the Israeli psychiatrist (sic! 🙂 Zvi Rex remarked upon as:

    “The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.“

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_antisemitism)

  • Interestingly enough, 99,9% of the people truly and freely consenting to any kind of plastic surgery being performed on them do not end up looking like Michael Jackson (may he rest in peace).

    Back on topic: contrary to plastic surgery procedures, the body part affected by ECT and other psychiatric „treatments“ is the very organ that we as humans depend on to experience life, ourselves and others, to think, feel, make decisions etc., in short: to live, at all – our brains in particular and the whole of our nervous system.

    Equating psychiatric so-called treatments with any other old form of medical procedure such as plastic surgery and „regular“ medical treatments is a shaky and kinda bold step, at best. Especially given the fact – you don’t need the reminder, but anyway, here goes… 🙂 – that the very concept of ‚mental illness‘ is based on fundamental category and attribution errors, that the so-called psychiatric diseases are proven to be mere phenomenological and tautological as well as neither reliable nor valid constructs, and are therefore always conveniently self-immunizing against verification and falsification in a general and even epistemic sense.

    And the act of being „diagnosed“ with a „mental illness“ in the first place, as I see it, is assault, libel, slander, and more importantly, a clear violation of personal rights – because who else, if not I, as the owner of my psyche, my mind, and the overall concept of MeMyselfandI should have the right to define myself as a person, and to define my problems, for that matter?

    So why in the world are we discussing – in part, at least – ECT as if it were a proper (and in some „cases“ even justified because of supposed informed consent) medical procedure/treatment?

  • Yes, Fiachra.

    As far as I understand it, the second and third generations of neuroleptics (also called ‚Atypicals‘) mask the neurological „adverse effects“ of the first generation major tranquilizers such as (tardive) dystonia and dyskinesia as well as akathisia – as long as an indivudal is on that particular class of drug, even though the neuroleptics as a ‚drug class‘ are highly heterogeneous, pharmacologically speaking.

    This particular masking or obscuring of the underlying drug-induced neurophysiological damage is achieved by adding antiparkinsonian agents such as ‚Biperiden‘ and derivatives to an already highly neurotoxic drug cocktail as it is – and this ‚paves the way’ for various cardiovascular, metabolic etc. so-called side-effects to become observable and recognizable as for what they are much more clearly than ever before.

  • B, I do not consider the ‚but‘ to be so small as it reintroduces the psychiatric shenanigans back into an already complex and complicated equation.

    Legal terms such as ‚intent‘ (which I forgot to mention re Anders Breivik as in killing ‚voluntarily‘ or ‚deliberately‘ 70+ people) for example are only clear as a bell as long as one does not begin to really think about them. How does one prove intent once and for all, then?

    Having said that, I think that for your scenario, it is perfectly possible to frame it in established legal terms, albeit just in an ideal of worlds. Let’s say the individual suffering from so-called delusions you mentioned killed another person. At least everyone involved in the initial indictment and trial is bound to recognize that something or other is not „right“ with that individual, or could at least not have been „right“ at the time of the crime.

    How about involuntary manslaughter, self-defense, or something along those lines, depending on the specifics of the crime, its situational precursors so to speak, etc.? I really do not see how psychiatric „experts“ could be of any „help“ whatsoever in debating these kinds of issues, really; they’d probably end up further confounding everyone else involved as well as the already immensely complex matter at hand.

  • There are purple bananas that can get you put into trucks of some kind… at least in the year 1999 – let’s go crazy – according to Prince.

    ‚Abilify‘ (aripriprazole) is a neologism – and also a so-called symptom (!) of so-called schizophrenia if someone engages in the use of neologisms in the presence of a psychiatrist – are the marketing people over at Bristol-Myers Squibb schizophrenic, or just immensely clever in their efforts to sell an antipsychotic, eh, a neuroleptic, eh wait, a major tranquilizer? Cute little tablets, in ever so much enabling shades of yellow, red and blue.

    Ariprizazole, for instance, as a neuroleptic can even cause what is called ‚psychosis‘ as a so-called side-effect, by inducing changes on a neurophysiological level throughout the central nervous system – a process which is then in turn labeled by some a pharmacogenic ‚hyper- or supersensitivity psychosis‘. These neuroleptic-induced changes throughout the whole of the CNS are the reasons for needing to slowly but surely reduce the dosage of these drugs over time, to allow for an individual’s capacity for neuroplasticity.

    So what exactly does ‚Abilify’ as a major tranquilizer ‚enable‘ one to do, then? Increase the dosage for any given „patient“ because s/he is experiencing a „schizophrenic/manic (positive symptoms)/depressive (negative symptoms) relapse“? I think we’re going bananas, here, big time…

    B: „Was Andreas Brevick “crazy”?“

    I do not think that Anders Breivik was or is „crazy“.

    He killed 70+ people, which was proven beyond any reasonable doubt before a Norwegian court of law – epistemic considerations aside re the ‚proven beyond any reasonable doubt‘ aspect. Therefore, he was convicted of first-degree murder in 70+ cases, as it would be phrased in the U.S. End of story, proper…

    the judges had to go through the motions of calling in so-called psychiatric experts to „testify“ on the defendant’s ‚sanity‘, of course, because that’s what a court of law in these of our days is required to do when confronted with a crime, the ‚true‘ dimension and nature of which is forever ungraspable… and naturally, these „experts“ came up with highly contradictory assessments/judgments re the defendant’s ‚sanity‘ – criminally insane/schizophrenic vs. in full capacity so to speak – all of which the court eventually chose to right out ignore.

    Respectfully,
    Britta

    p.s.
    I am very well aware that in the eyes of some of you I might have pulled a ‚Godwin‘ here in this thread – I did not mean to do so, by all and any means… Let me also assure you that I would rather be caught dead-living selling purple bananas out of a truck than, say, joining the Church of Scientology, OK? And please do note the loosening of associations here on my part, would you be ever so kind? 🙂

  • Addendum:

    Dr. Robert Jay Lifton – in the introduction ‘This World Is Not This World’ to his book ‘The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide’ – writes:

    ————————–
    “What my survivor friend was struggling with — what I have struggled with throughout this study — is the disturbing psychological truth that participation in mass murder need not require emotions as extreme or demonic as would seem appropriate for such a malignant project. Or to put the matter, another way, ordinary people can commit demonic acts.

    But that did not mean that Nazi doctors were faceless bureaucratic cogs or automatons. As human beings, they were actors and participants who manifested certain kinds of behavior for which they were responsible, and which we can begin to identify.

    There are several dimensions, then, to the work. At its heart is the transformation of the physician — of the medical enterprise itself — from healer to killer. That transformation requires us to examine the interaction of Nazi political ideology and biomedical ideology in their effects on individual and collective behavior.”
    ————————–

    The complete text is available online:

    http://www.holocaust-history.org/lifton/contents.shtml

    Respectfully,
    Britta

  • Donna: “that those at such trials at the time acknowledged that without psychiatry the Holocaust based on psychiatry’s previous gassing to death of those they stigmatized as mentally ill and their evil, bogus eugenics theories, such human Holocausts would probably have never happened and the same predatory agenda continues today.”

    Spot-on, Donna.

    Action T4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4):
    —————————-
    “In addition, technology that was developed under Action T4, particularly the use of lethal gas to effect large scale murder, was transferred to the medical division of the Reich Interior Ministry, along with transfers of personnel who had participated in the development of the technology.[10]”

    “The policy and research agenda in racial hygiene and eugenics were actively promoted by Emil Kraepelin, a convinced social-Darwinist.[14] The eugenic sterilization of persons diagnosed with (and viewed as predisposed to) schizophrenia was advocated by Eugene Bleuler[15] who presumed racial deterioration because of mental and physical cripples in his Textbook of Psychiatry:[16]

    The more severely burdened should not propagate themselves… If we do nothing but make mental and physical cripples capable of propagating themselves, and the healthy stocks have to limit the number of their children because so much has to be done for the maintenance of others, if natural selection is generally suppressed, then unless we will get new measures our race must rapidly deteriorate.”
    —————————-

    Unfortunately, as far as I know, the brilliant analysis “Kontinuitäten der (Zwangs-)Psychiatrie. Eine kritische Betrachtung” (Continuities/Continuousness in (coercive) psychiatry. A critical reflection) by Alice Halmi is only available in German:

    http://www.irrenoffensive.de/kontinuitaeten_zwangspsychiatrie.pdf

    Respectfully,
    Britta

  • AA: „but I swear if Hitler was around, his atrocities would be blamed on untreated mental illness. Many times, people are simply evil and there isn’t a reason for what they do.“

    AA, I absolutely agree. This sort of framing/re-framing of what Hannah Arendt from a philosophical perspective described as the „Banality of Evil“ as a mental illness/disorder exclusively attributed and attributable to any given individual conveniently deludes the fact that evil – as we see, think, and feel it – is always systemic.

    Hitler, and any other dictator-like figures for that matter, had helpers, many many helpers, in thought, in action, otherwise the unspeakable atrocities – e.g. in the so-called ‚Third Reich‘ – would have never ever happened if we as human beings were able to confront as well as deal with our own little mean evil streaks on a day-to-day basis – and really and clearly see what these little mean evil streaks in everyone of us could amount to, if combined and „organized“ in a so-called system.

    It seems to me, though, that there are no systems to speak of any longer, globally, because what we begin to recognize is that anything that we call a ‚system‘ is, always was, and always will be a self-organizing sort of conglomerate that everyone and anyone contributes to, one way or the other, and in the form of every shade of gray in between…

  • “INSANE?
    Your own Choice!”

    “The Pat­Ver­fü, an ad­vance di­rec­tive with a built-in re­p­re­sen­ta­tion agree­ment, in which any un­wan­ted psych­ia­tric tre­at­ment and any de­pri­va­tion of li­berty whatsoever re­sul­ting from a psych­ia­tric dia­gno­sis is pro­hi­bi­ted by law.”

    The above quotes were taken from this website:

    http://www.patverfue.de/en

    I do not have any idea if, and if so, how the PatVerfü approach would work in other countries and other systems of law other than Germany, where the PatVerfu was developed. Then again, I am not a lawyer, it is now up to you people fluent in legalese to…

    Respectfully,
    Britta

  • Francesca, as very clearly stated in my post, I believe that the existence of mental disorders can only be rationally debated since the term ‚mental disorder‘ in and of itself is an irrational man-made construct to begin with – and a highly hubristic and overbearing concept at that, to say the least, imho.

    And this, as well as its implications for individuals and (a) society as a whole, needs to be addressed in any dialog regarding psychiatry and its spin-off clinical psychology because otherwise we as discussants will forever be caught in this utterly futile „thing“ called ‚being unable to see the forest for the trees‘ – and vice versa.

    Respectfully,
    Britta

  • Francesca, of course mental disorders and psychosis don’t exist – as in ‚illness/disease‘‚ which really is absurd, how could they? They’re just man-made concepts and ideas based on the perception and most of all assessment of observed behavior as well as reported feeling and thinking, by the „patient“ or others.

    What definitely exists however, and what does not even begin to get addressed by the mental health industry as we know it, and it is an industry, is human distress. Naturally the phenomena that get labelled as ‚psychotic‘ do exist, they are part of the human experience, of being human. Is it helpful – to the individual so labeled, her/his family, friends, etc. or in order to be able to shed some light onto what constitutes the distress in a given situation, to label someone as ‚psychotic‘ and to „treat“ a so-called psychosis with so-called medications? Maybe even forcibly so?

    I think not. Psychiatry itself is the disease that it claims to treat. End of story.

    Respectfully,
    Britta

  • Dear Mrs. Minkowitz,

    Please forgive me if I misinterpret and misunderstand your line of reasoning here (the reasons for this being that I am neither a lawyer nor a native speaker of English).

    It seems to me that arguing within the framework of the concept of ‚disability‘ per se implies acknowledging the medical model approach through the backdoor, so to speak, because disability, as it is defined internationally if I am not mistaken, means being impaired, socially and/or otherwise, in day-to-day functioning due to a disease process.

    Since the status of so-called mental illnesses/disorders as diseases proper as in ‚somatic‘ is not only highly questionable but also highly unlikely – given not only (recent) scientific research (as presented and referred to on this web site) but also because of fundamental epistemic questions and problems in perception and definition of behavior and most of all mental processes in general, from my point of view, advocacy against discrimination (based on secondary criteria alone) does not cut it in the mid- to long-term of our advocacy; right to the contrary: it could eventually contribute to consolidating and reifying the initial metaphor of psychosocial problems with living as a disease process in an individual human being.

    A line of reasoning against discrimination and for human rights as in ‚international‘ and generic as well as independent of systems of law (common or civil) in my opinion needs to take into account the fundamental human rights violation that triggers and constitutes all secondary criteria:

    the definition of mental illness as a somatic, a brain disease, including the notorious and tautological ‚lack of insight‘ as well as ‚therefore supposedly being a danger to oneself and/or others‘‚ and forcibly imposing this fundamentally flawed concept in the form of a medical „diagnosis“ of so-called mental illnesses on an individual in the first place.

    Respectfully,
    Britta