Sunday, May 26, 2019

Comments by RJGrigaitis

Showing 10 of 10 comments.

  • If religion and science agree on a subject, why not push the religious aspect since court cases dealing with freedom of religion almost always rule on the side of religious liberties. Thus, the question of forced psychiatric treatment becomes a question of religious freedoms. It is not only Scientology that disagrees with the materialistic biomedical model of psychiatry, but Eastern Orthodoxy who continue to refer to priests as “ιατρό των ψυχών” from which we get the word “psychiatrist.”

    “The soul functions through the body, and if the body is damaged, say in its higher brain centres, then the soul cannot express itself, without for all that having been lost.”
    — Hierodeacon Theophanes (Constantine), The Psychological Basis of Mental Prayer in the Heart

  • Physiotherapists receive a good amount of training in electrical theory and safety even though they deal with a fraction of the electrical current used in ECT. While Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) could be potentially dangerous, and High Voltage Pulsed Current (HVPC) even more so, ECT would be immediately life threatening if a hand to hand connection (i.e. direct path of current through the chest cavity) were made. It is odd that psychiatrists are not given at least the same amount of training as physiotherapists regarding electrical theory and safety. Do psychiatrist know that they’d likely be killed if they close a hand to hand circuit with a live ECT machine?

    As a person professionally trained in the electrical and computer industry, it becomes obvious very quickly that psychiatrists are quite ignorant when they talk about the technical aspect ECT electronics. Simply the technical specs on the sales brochures for ECT machines should be enough to prevent the legal production of these machines.

    A case could likely be made that the accreditation of an Electrical Engineer or other technology professional who works with or develops ECT machines should be revoked by their professional association due to violations of their Code of Ethics. The following points seem most applicable in the Code of Ethics of my association:
    1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, the protection of the environment and the promotion of health and safety within the workplace;
    2. Undertake and accept responsibility for professional assignments only when qualified by training and experience;
    3. Provide an opinion on a professional subject only when it is founded upon adequate knowledge and honest conviction;
    9. Report to the appropriate agencies any hazardous, illegal or unethical professional decisions or practices by other members or others;

    http://www.aset.ab.ca/About/About-ASET/Protecting-The-Public.aspx

  • After checking with the Royal College of Physicians, the General Medical Council, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, it became evident that it is impossible to become a psychiatrist, at least in the English speaking world, without demonstrating proficiency in administering ECT. This would mean that everyone who gains the credentials of “psychiatrist” has preformed ECT on vulnerable people and is, therefore, culpable in the harm done regardless whether or not he or she continued using ECT after becoming certified.

    This would seem to be a major factor in preventing psychiatrists who acknowledge the lack of positive effects and the damage done by ECT from speaking out against it. Would you agree?

    Are there any colleges and accreditation councils in the English speaking world, or elsewhere, where a person can obtain the credentials of “psychiatrist” without demonstrating proficiency in administering ECT?

  • The underlying theories of psychiatry and psychiatric treatments are based on materialism, which was officially condemned as a heretical belief by the Catholic Church at the First Vatican Council towards the end of the 19th century. Thus, forced psychiatric treatment is a question of religious freedoms, which are protected by law in many countries.

    http://sophiaidios.blogspot.ca/2016/12/great-martyr-anastasia-deliverer-from.html

  • I mention specifically where these condemnations are found in my blog post: the canons of Session III of First Vatican Council published on April 24, 1870 and Session VIII of the Fifth Lateran Council in the bull Apostolici Regiminis, published December 19, 1513.

    Regardless of anyones religious affiliation or lack there of, these dogmatic documents could be used to put political/moral pressure on Catholic bishop to greatly reform psych wards in Catholic hospitals by banning all forms of somatic harm.

    My blog posts used Santa Claus (i.e. St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra) as an example of a bishop taking a very firm stance against heresy and “saving the innocent from death.”

    https://sophiaidios.blogspot.ca/2016/10/what-do-santa-claus-and-chemical.html

  • I take serious issue with your suggestion that Santa Claus is as mythical as the theory that mental illnesses are caused by chemical imbalances. Not only is Santa Claus real (i.e. 4th century Bishop of Myra), but the bio-medical model of psychiatry is based on two heresies condemned by two Catholic Ecumenical Councils. As such, Catholic bishops are within their right to ban practices based on these pseudo-scientific theories from any Catholic hospitals.

    Thank you for being the catalyst for the blog post I wrote this night, which makes reference to this one on Mad in America:
    http://sophiaidios.blogspot.ca/2016/10/what-do-santa-claus-and-chemical.html

  • A Beautiful Mind was the first movie I saw after my second hospitalization a couple years earlier. The movie was very hopeful and confirmed everything I had been told about schizophrenia. Had I read the book instead, the contradictions in the book with what I had been told may have opened my eyes to the split between what psychiatry says and logical reality. That is to say, psychiatry matches its own definition of schizophrenia much more closely than anyone it labels as “schizophrenic.” The Greek origins of the word schizophrenia even contradicts and discredits modern psychiatry, just like the term psychosomatic and the term psychiatrist itself.

    Even the idea that neuroleptics are just like “drugs that fix chemical imbalances like insulin for diabetes” is quite illogical when you consider that the very concept of neuroleptics, a very accurate name, is to induce the very thing that the “drugs that fix chemical imbalances like insulin for diabetes” are trying to prevent.

    I have found that the two easiest ways to argue with a psychiatrist is to ask for any valid scientific evidence to support what he is saying, or cite any other valid field of medicine. Psychiatry always fails on both accounts.