Monday, December 11, 2017

Comments by kayla

Showing 100 of 109 comments. Show all.

  • Great artical! Thanks for posting, and keeping us up to date! Am stressed, but trying to contact people. Have gotten through this my representative, but doesn’t seem to help. It will take time, and there’s never any certainty of anything. Got through to one of the senators in my state. Trying not to let the idea it won’t make a difference effect my calls too much.

  • I see, and share a lot of your same concerns. However, if force could be eliminated, that would be great. Even if they acknowledge no proof of a chemical imbalance, but still claim to have the ultimate truth. Especially if force is still involved. How can we go from there? If it’s already accepted there is no proof, but still allow them to have authority. Although, less overt forms of oppression still scare me, like people who feel hopeless, and like it’s there only option. Still I fear the force part will still be there. Still a big what if. Seems like people aren’t even ready to buy the facts. Think that largely surrounds wanting to believe force is right. Fear to take responsibility for decisions.

  • As usual great artical. Always find myself not only agreeing so much, but so impressed by your ability to convey it, and unapologetic honesty. This line was very telling “It is not surprising, then, that when I read descriptions or see my job portrayed as forceful or horrific, I want to take the time to correct them” What part is not surprising that, she is portrayed as forceful, when she writes an artical that defends force? However, is it just me, or on some level does she realizes this is horrific, because she seems to connect the two.

    She has been screamed at? All she did was lock patents, and take away their belongings, and admitted it ‘felt like prison to them’. She get’s it though? ‘Psychiatry is there to help, and the past patents are just misguided’ If she trusts this field so much, how about she goes to a mental ward, and asks to be admitted for an evaluation? How would she know if doesn’t lack ‘insight’ into a potential ‘illness’? Doubt she would, and she’s trained into what words not to say, because she probably knows how subjective this is. She would probably even find it scary…

    Getting new patients… Is the goal. Hence all the focus is making her seem less ‘scary’. Wonder why their is a fear of mental patients? Could it be she says “I’ve been screamed at, cursed at, rushed towards, demeaned and have seen patients and nurses get seriously injured”. Only to justify forced injection. Also minimizes any potential responsibility. Making them sound irrational, and violent…

  • Hope to see more stuff like this. Appreciate a lot what was addressed Ron, as I’ve wondered similar things myself. Here’s something I posted in the forum, would like to hear some your thoughts, as well as anyone else that’s interested.

    It is highly focussed on a treatment center, that I’ve had very negative experiences with, but ideas are similar. Have been blocked on Twitter. Had sort of made a counterpoint to artical they posted, no conditions as far as I know. It wasn’t even disagreeing just adding a point that wasn’t addressed. Interesting how even politicians, often have to at least act like they care what you have to say to a degree. Rep Tim Murphy blocked many of us, the second we said anything remotely critical.

    How do you see this changing? Seems almost impossible, when their above any feedback, that’s not completly in their favor?

    https://www.madinamerica.com/forums/topic/rethinking-or-rewording/

  • People who identify as SJW, generally seem more concerned with avoiding certain words, and only listening to certain members of a group that fit their agenda. for example the people who identify with APAs definition of mental illness , or black people who agree with them, while not listening to black people who feel let down, or people in the mental health system who feel let down. They also seem to lash out at those who disagree, and aren’t sympathetic.

  • Saying stuff like out of the question, or conversation should end here is what I concidder shutting down dialog.

    Important stuff would be, having people explain why they concidder psychiatry to be similar to slavery. I’ve heard reasons given that make sense. If someone is offended explain why. Does the person who thinks it’s not offensive seem like they understand the other side, and is there any common ground?

    It doesn’t seem like there is an emphasis on understanding psychitic oppression. I feel that is a main reason it comes up.

    Like I also said, many liberals tend to shut down, groups of people they supposed are looking out for. From what I’ve seen the Green Party seems like it may handle all of these issues better. I’m just not sure. I just know lib/Dems tend not to be very understanding of me, and others. The Green Party may help fix this.

  • The grammar is a bit off. I was flustered. I just have a problem when someone, acts like they can say whatever’s because they’re ‘speaking for a group’. I’ve heard psychitry do it to us. I’ve heard liberals do it to blacks too.

  • That’s my point. I feel this is very disrespectful. I’ve not given my opinion. I’m trying to just discuss the importance of dialog, and feel talked down to. Challenge the way I look at what? All I’ve spoken of was encouraging dialog.

    I’m to you as a person, not to blacks people, or people of color. Not to any group of people. This seems like. An abrasive, and uniting view from you. Stop making me sound not understanding of groups I’m not speaking to.

    This is antagonistic, and hypocritical.

  • I don’t like the tone, or the delivery of this artical. Not any hypothetical people speaking up. That’s another issue.

    More specifically the fact that this seems to close the door on conversation. It’s also the way your responding to comments. I feel like you’re not really hearing people.

    I can only speak for myself, but your really not hearing what I’m saying.

  • “The way *together* – as far as I can tell – is to stop expecting people be okay with the default, to speak honestly about these issues that are very real in this movement, to work *through* the feelings of alienation and defensiveness, and to work toward getting to a point where we *respect* each oppressed groups voice, value, and experience in real and intentional ways.”

  • Why should groups try to avoid “alienating” some people. If you aren’t worried about “alienating” us.

    Forget psychiatric oppression, and racism for a minute. Every movement is a difficult balance between, putting forth challenging ideas, but also being understanding of the other side. Well, conflict, communication, and understanding in general is.

    If I’m being honest this mostly just seems antagonistic, and I don’t see it as being a place to create understanding. To be honest it seems Allen Frances like. This is a group who is often oppressed, and is being accused of oppression. Guess it wasn’t one part of what you said, or how you said it, but the sum of the whole.

  • When you type a *word* I say out of context. Like that.

    You are saying psychiatric survivors don’t understand black peoples experience when comparing ours to theirs, but you use an example of a psychiatrist. Psychiatrists have literally oppressed many people on the site. Again how is that not doing, what you accuseothers of?

  • Can you please speak what you actually mean, an not use symbols to imply my quotes mean something different, and expect me to know this?

    You spoke of alienating other groups, and don’t care about alienating people from within. What are you trying to accomplish?

    I do generally think this can be worked out, but it seems like you are ignoring the backlash we get from, “progressive” groups, who seem to think they hold the ultimate truth in this area. Hence why I think shutting down conversation is so dangerous.

    Also another point I was trying to make about turning on each other. “When asked about this topic, Suman Fernando (a Black psychiatrist originally from Sri Lanka currently residing in England and who has done a great deal of work related to racism and psychiatry) had this to say” How is this not doing the very thing you accuse others of?

  • Sera, if Comparing psychiatric oppression to slavery than I would come at this from a different perspective, but I think most dismiss us from the get go.

    It seems like you alienating people who play a key part in this movement. There aren’t many places to express the effects of this kind of oppression. Many had to hold back a lot with psychiatry.

    Frank expresses stuff I bet a lot of people want to, but fee like they can’t. The same is true for Oldhead. Also many have been working hard to keep people up to date.

    If you want to discuss on some level, how our launguge, and approach could be improved, that’s one thing. Just think these things should be approached as a discussion. Also think we should also emphasize our movement disivers its own place too. Many have been shut down, in the past, and I don’t think that’s good for anyone.

  • I personally think everyone’s opinion should be allowed on MIA, and as people who are shut down, be especially willing to listen, and hear people out. As a community we do all have fighting psychiatric oppression. If people ant to bring up racism, or other forms of discrimination, just think it should be done in a more open way.

    That being said, I don’t think many SJW points of view are all that sensitive, or compassionate. I know we reguallry get branded as being of privlage for not subscribing to psychiatry’s perspective, or even called Scientologis, just for asking for people to concidder psychiatries harm, or lack of validity.

    However, I do hope that soon we will be able to come together, before it’s too late, and slip further affecting generations to come.

  • I don’t think bringing up race in turning against the movement, especially if talked about in regards to interacting with one another. Even if explaining this to someone who’s never heard of it, or only heard one side. However, it’s different when talking about mental health workers feeling offended by this.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t think a dialog and diplomacy isn’t of value. I just think this specially in many ways is against the movement. Like I said I also think this type of mentality often harms black people as well. Part of the reason many are offended by the comparison is psychiatry is a “helping profession”.

    This is the us vs them mentality I find harmful. I never claimed we were above anyone, or even experesed much opinion either way. Just I think there should be more of a space for our movement, and different voices in general.

  • I don’t use the term, but see people not seeing this as a human rights issue in general. I meant that I think some people compare our movemt to other movements, becaus ours isn’t taken seously.

    Please, say in your opinion, where I ‘started’ or ‘landed’.

    I meant a lot of my comments as broad too, in case that was confusing.

  • Think that one big thing not addressed here is the fact that people in charge, and people in general are dishonest, and manipulative a lot of the times. Not to mention create hostility to those deemed outsiders.

    I’ve tried to bring up simply racist, and homophobic roots in psychiatry, written in the DSM. This is even met with backlash. Either compleat denial, or told how long ago, it was, and doesn’t still apply. This comes from the same people who regularly, or associate with groups who talk about how racism in the past effects the present. often times supposed progressives. They’ll also defend forced psychiatry. Could go on.

    The same people also tend to jump down black people, and other groups of people they are supposedy looking out for if they disagree. Depending on who you ask “having a mental illness” would be included in this group, and we’re being oppressive towards them. The fact that the only requirement is a DX which many of us received, doesn’t matter.

    The fact that it’s hard to believe anyone in general, often people will ignore parts that don’t fit their agenda, including from groups they supposedly want to to help, but will attack them. In some circumstances people are either are really just tryin to avoid oppression themselves, and/or planning to address other oppression later.

    However, so many people seem to ignore how it all ties together. I think listening to each other better, is not a bad thing. Bringing aware of others oppression too. However, if someone especially in the field of psychiatry feels uncomfortable, with comparing psychiatry to slavery, I’d be more inclined to side with the person who was psychiatricly oppressed regardless of race. Outside of that it’s deffinatly a conversation to have. I just feel like this is yet another time when our movement is being turned on even from within. Many people compare it to slavery, because it’s not seen as its own human rights issue.

  • Haha thanks… I think. It wasn’t much of a challenge. Actually the oppisite. I got blocked for telling Allen Frances, that he didn’t need to unnecessarily add his bias to another topic. Was trying to tone what I was saying, but blocked pretty quickly. Tim Murphy blocked me shortly after. I mostly just referenced him, and his bill as harmful.

    I was wondering if anyone knows where psychiatry stands now politically. Allen Frances, if he’s trying to get on the Democrtas good side, or just looking out for psychiatry, and to what degree. Tim Murphy is extremely tactless, and I think that’s the reason why his bill has been dragging for so long, but I don’t know for how long. Does anyone know where mental health figures, and politicians stand in relation to one another?

  • Tim Murphy didn’t say either way, and of course tried to reach out to Hillary, and Trump, to push his bill on them. Now of course he congratulated him, but jumped right to his bill of course. He’s Republican, but really too full of himself in many ways to make an effective polliticain. Guess, the mean to health fried tends to produce this. However, he’s still connected in some ways, and he get’s stuff through at times, he’s also just relentless.

    The APA, of course is already addressing Trump. Trying to get him on board.

    Allen Frances has spoken against Trump, and still is. Does anyone know, how relevant he is the mental health field. I know he panders to people’s concerns without, harming psychiatry, and mostly where it concerns him. I just don’t know how much the field agreed, or is in on what he’s doing.

    I’m wondering if anyone knows more on where people in the mental health field stand. I’m blocked by Tim Murphy, and Allen Frances on Twitter, but I can read some what say on Googel search, and even more if I sign off

  • I didn’t see it as critism towards him, but I was trying to bring the attention somewhat to people who actually critisize. I was just trying to show that everyone who was questioning the terms is still on the same side.

    Deffinatley, agreed. I was trying to say that when I said, it’s such a complex, and difficult situation. The problems, are deep and vast. The solution would take all of us contributing in the best way we can. Think this is important. Also I meant the discussion to be around that, so instead of butting heads, and people deffending Bob, when I think he knows we agree with what matters. We could discuss how we can best out our unique takes on this , in the most effective way, and maybe avoid time spent on misunderstandings like these.

    I mentioned in that post that Bob’s website already allowed this, and I felt like it was part of the plan. He’d responded, but won’t go into it, as it’s easy to locate, and I think most will know which one I’m talking about. However, it confirms my thoughts.

    I think we should discuss, our concerns, and chances are it’s best for Bob to continue like this. Although, we can still voice our concern. In the mean time I think there should be a discussion of sorts, and a plan. Not “one voice”, but how each of ours can contribute, the best way in a collaborative sense.

  • Bradford, almost everyone here is in agreement. You often times make great points, and I hadn’t said before, but the sites you told me about were very helpful. I’m very impressed with you, and many others here. While, I think you are right, I think what Oldhead brings up is very important. I, know I’ve underestimated psychiatry. Even if I believe Bob knows what he is doing, and even seems like it may be the smartest way to go about. It certainly gives me comfort that there are stil people trying to make sure, we’re going in the direction we all agree on. That’s what counts, and think we all know that, however think people’s defensiveness for Bob, may make them unable to hear this message. Those of us concerned still, think he’s great, and I even have a feeling this may be the way to go. However, it’s still a good discussion to have. Besides, what we really should be focussed on is what Allen Frances, and Ronald Pies. Also some commenters who critisize his overall message.

  • Well, you and I are in agreement, but my point was how can we get others to see? Like I said I’m growing cynical. However, the small chance I do see, makes this conversation seem unavoidable. However, perhaps something else will click first, and we can bypass this. However, for now getting people to see this, although daunting seems necessary, even if it seems never ending.

  • Correct me if I’m off base, but it sounds like you are hinting that we stop discussing aspects of Bob’s work. It’s interesting, because part of what makes him such a great writer is his attention to wording, and openness to people’s opinions. With all due respect I think it’s truly amazing that for you to get off these drugs after being on them for years, don’t think you want to make sure that is extended to as much people as possible? All of us are really doing the best we can to make that happen. You sound alsmot as if you are defending Bob. However, I those of us, who have tried to reason with directory, psychiatry, and/or indirectly by correct the misconceptions it creates, realize the importance of wording. Bob even expresses this. On top of that, I think it was made pretty clear, that we all not only think Bob’s heart is in the right place, but he’s gotten so much right. We just want to make sure we are covering all bases. I also think it’s important to note, that Bob’s writing is also great, because of how he puts emphasis on accurately portraying the voice of those he represents. While, I actually agree in some respects, with what you are saying. The reasoning, is different. I wish you would listen, to some of what we “intellectuals” are saying, because we are trying hard to make a difficult situation right. Bob, emphasizes so much on giving space to those who have been wronged by psychiatry. You have no idea, how we wish that the information you listed put out was enough. However, there are laws stacked against people, and those who deny them. They are covered up. So many don’t even have a choice, already have such deep seated beliefs, or haven’t even heard of them. Also, like I was saying before, this is a complex situation, but either way I think there still needs to be a discussion of some sorts, to get us on the same page. Lastly I can’t help, because I find very ironic. Listed with the intellectuals, after being labeled “intellectually disabled”, after being labeled, “Aspergers”, who are stereotypically “gifted” in that respect. Found it funny, even if it sounded a bit off handed. In fact may’ve made it funnier.

  • Yes, I understood was just having trouble wording clearly. Although, I could’ve sworn your tone of your writing, at least sounds like a blatant shadow of a doubt, whenever DX comes up.

    I’ve spoken to many mental health workers, and to even have a conversation, it’s almost impossible. They will throw out terms, just because they Know people will take their word for it, because who can keep up with all of their jargon? Then you get them using all kinds of complicated sounding, unproveable things. If you point out it doesn’t make sense. The are either dumbing down something you can’t understand, talking from years of experience, talking for insurance companies, or you haven’t gone to medical school. Just to name a few.

    What we need to do is come up with some clear critism of the DSM. Yes, that amoung other things. After, only reading a bit Bob’s words online, I was almost certain he did not believe in mental illness. Only I wondered why he would not say this, but I’d also heard that he was the cause of a lot of people getting, and taking people off medication, or not even going that root. I knew how difficult this problem would be to completely untangle, but their was progress. Although still there was some concern about the fact, he didn’t blatantly question DX. I thought there may be a reason. However, when learning about this site, I’m fairly confident that it’s the right move. Especially after seeing him put in to words, what was ounce jumbled up guesses in my head. However, I do want to try and explain this, even though my explanations seem to me to be just a less clear version of what Bob is saying, because I was so close to coming to that conclusion. In all honesty I may’ve even pressed further, and especially when it came to “selective” use of antipsychotics, even though I think we all know is code, for opting out of them whenever possible( In other words always in at least many of our opinions.)

    However, I know it’s been suggested some kind of unified opinion, or voice. I think we need a unified plan. It’s so complex, and although it doesn’t have to be everyone agreeing all the time. I just think, that we somehow, have to get to the point where we understand where ther other is coming from to the point where we get distracted, and go in circles, on something we really agree in the end on. I also think we’ll have to go from different angles. If we are all making the exact same points, it will almost be impossible to cover everything. Some of us will also be better, at explaining, and implementing different things.

  • That’s what I meant for most effective points to crititisize. It’s plenty difficult enough with all of nonsense they throw in to distract. However, to argue the DSM at that point would be taking forever. Keep in mind Allen France’s is involved which would probably mean you would have to argue every addition, like it’s a separate entity. However, you seemed to have pointed to some things, that ought to make people at least, question if not doubt them. When it comes to questioning the DSM, there really had to plenty of space, to focus on just that. There really can’t be enough space dedicated.

  • I don’t disagree, that’s one reason. A big reason, and probably also the root cause in the beginning. While, now it also makes quite a profit. Only, right now, they are claiming to be concerned with long term outcomes. So, as long as they are claiming this, and people are taking their word for it, it’s a basis we have to argue. Although, it rough, and my cynicism only get’s higher. Hopefully, something, somewhere will click for the better soon. At least I hope to see a chance of this.

  • Great analysis of Allen Frances! Agreed on almost everything you said. Although, not the parts that sort of had traces of the DSM. Although I agree, with all the points made.

    Mostly wanted to say that, but a side note, I believe Bob has a plan as far as the most effective points to critisize. Of course, he has a website that allows for different people to approach in different ways. I think that’s part of the plan as well. It would make sense, because it’s such a complex, and difficult situation. The problems, are deep and vast. The solution would take all of us contributing in the best way we can. Think this is important!

  • Well, for me I decided the drugs either wasn’t that, good or the medication root was not for me. I told them I suggested it may not be for me. Only to the doctor it was normal, and I wasn’t giving it enough of a shot. Ineffective with side effects, and granted I was being abused at home. Only, still a feild that calls themselves medicine, and it’s perfectly normal to go years according to them suffering with side effects, and getting little to no bennifit. They wanted me to say, that the other people were trying harder, giving it more of chance, and aspire to be like them. That sounded awful. I would never want that. Whenever they told me a storie of someone who apparently had it worse, and was still trying I wanted less to do with them or their drugs. Even the so called success stories didn’t seem worth it. It wasn’t even worth being insulted, and talked down to for asking a question, like the side effects, or how they knew I needed it would benefit from medication.

  • Phill, I wondered why that was. I mean how so many people like that end up psychiatrists? I think it may appeal to some people that any critism, and failure can be put on the patient. Now, that people are becoming more aware of problems, they’re claiming discrimination.

    It’s annoying though, because anyone can see what you are writing about. You communicate points very well, but all anyone would have to do was look at the information honestly.
    Even for a believer, you’d think they’d at least see you made some good points, realize psychiatrists don’t respond well to any criticism, are using the word discrimination inappropriately, and should be held accountable.

  • Thanks, for responding Alex. You make many great points. It is a learning curve, and some of these issues about the system are hard to understand without experiencing first hand. I know some people within are trying very hard to see things from other perspectives. A lot are recognizing problems, and speaking up against it. A lot have have shown admirable qualities. Which is why I often find it a difficult balance, to try and present ways in which we still seem to talking past one another. I believe a big one would be to get others to at least start speaking about the system as a whole, even if at the end of day we still dissagree. At least, then we’d be talking about the same thing.

  • Alex, while I’m trying to give James the bennifit of the doubt, in many ways things like this aren’t given much thought. While he seems to be ahead of many others, I still him ignoring many points brought up. I don’t like that people who are critical of mental health as a whole, get written off as not looking at the whole picture. When, in reality we are, just in a more integrated way. James thinks he’s looking at both the bad, and the good aspects, but doesn’t appear to be looking at the overall situation. It won’t be just as simple as eliminating the bad, while preserving the good. He also doesn’t seem to realize the problems are way worse, for not speaking out against the mental health feild, than the one he lists.

    I do agree with your points though, but wish being critical as a whole will stop being written off as unreasonable, or one sided. Even when people try to explain they mean the system as a whole, they’re still written off for those reasons. I don’t know how people will ever be able to see the overall point trying to be made.

  • Exactly, that’s what I’m trying to say. The important thing is bad stuff is aloud to happen. The whole I greater than the sum of it’s parts. We can’t possibly not call out a corrupted system, at the chance certain individuals may be misrepresented. There is so much more at stake for letting the problems remain not talked about. People have to realize this.

  • James, again I think you missed the point. I think these conversations have enough tension, to what I may even go as far as saying is slightly antagonist on your part. Only slightly, and may not be intentional, but I think you are potentially adding tension, to a conversation that would otherwise be a thoughtful, and fair disagreement. Steve is pointing out that the school system as a whole is a problem. That’s precisely why I brought up the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts, point. For you to bring up isolated instances with many factors, and to blame it on abandoning the school system just isn’t fair. There are actually stories of either alternative systems to the traditional schooling, or people who were able to forge other paths, that ended up doing great. However, it must be kept in mind, that the wait wait of the importance society places on school, and other factors can’t be ignored. That’s why the analogy makes sense, as long as we remember they are not completely identical.

    You were saying that if people were described as being completely evil who had “psychological problems”. That is a very subjective choice of words, that could mean many different things to different people. Do you mean people in mental distress? I think that any act that would otherwise be described at pure evil, would be committed by someone who would like be in lot of mental distress, and probably be described as having ” psychological Problems”, or “psychologically disturbed” what cereal killer, or terrorist do you think could not meet that description? In fact the broader the mental health descriptions get, the more people like that are officially getting labeled. I don’t see anybody getting slammed for saying those people are just evil, and lost causes in most places, let alone MIA. Everyone experiences distress. I find most people, at MIA to not only be aware of this, but not arbitrarily draw a line past where it’s “normal”. A main thing talked about here is the stress of being in the mental health system itself.

    To go back to the analogy, yes there would need to be at least something to undo the some of the damage done. However, there could also be an alternative that took people off drugs, in a personalized way like Kelly Brogan did. I think it’s great that she did that, and it was probably the best decision at the time. However, if there were systems outside of the mental health field that helped people do this, we could have a chance of a world without it. I think you are looking at this from a very narrow lense. What makes you so sure we need the mental health system? If we not only started to transition into alternatives that actually focussed on the real problems, along with a broader focus of people in general. I just don’t see this system ever not be one that disables people, and takes away their rights. I don’t see how enough change within could turn around the situation as a whole.

    If you can honestly say something that would change my mind, I am all ears. However, saying you think people are unfairly lumped together is not a legitimate reason. Not when people have so much more at stake, at an individual, and societal level.

  • Defiantly agreed. Not to mention, the defenders are typically the most offensive. When they are you won”t hear a psychiatrist be critical, but actually thank them. I’m referring specifically when they openly bash the patients they so call care for.

    However these things are becoming more and more pardoxical. I mean people are depressed, because they are being stigmatized for being depressed, which is supposedly what they are being treated for. It’s all just said without explanation. Too many unanswered questions, and loose ends.

  • What they call stigma of mental patients is the stuff they list as symptoms. Makes no sense at all. If they want to stop people from thinking their patients are “dangerous” and “unpredictable”, than maybe they should not always be saying why their pills are neccisarry, or what compassionate people they are to treat people like this. If something spills into the public? Maybe the public has formed it’s own opinion. Now, we are worried about GPs. I thought that big pharma, was targeting GPs, because all the people who see a GP instead of a psychiatrist.

    The study also clearly mentions a lot of critism towards all professions. The spilling into the public, is just nonsense. The only medical profession I’ve heard really criticize others is psychiatry. Like, how they say stuff like the brain is so complex, and they have the toughest job in medicine. That everything is really effected by the brain. Other doctors have so easy with they’re vacations, and their set schedules, but they’re always on call. Then of course that the other doctors don’t understand the difficulties of helping such difficult people, and not even being appreciated for it. Pretty much makes sense why any stigma would be surrounding it. In fact, I’m pretty sure all the stigma would be traced back to psychiatry. Especially seeing as how common it is to receive a diagnosis, if it weren’t for all their fear tactics, it would probably be normalized. In fact, it really is starting to become that way. If those medical students were being told they were probably worse than their patients, did it ever occur to them, that at this rate chances are they really have a diagnosis?

    In fact, the only critism I’ve heard was directed at psychiatrists, like the artical states, which would automatically be counter to this spreading to patients. None of stigma would apply. Like I said, they’re the only branch of medicine I hear criticizing the others. Whose fault is it if they choose, to overcompensate for any critism by shutting themselves in, and congratulating each other. In fact, quite the opposite from what I’ve seen. I’ve seen the mental health field react very arrogantly, and other fields of medicine attempt to be welcoming, and even supportive of them. In my opinion, even have way to much faith, and would consult a psychiatrist if they don’t know the answer. Yea, not always, but a lot of the times, they seem to have gave it an honest shot, and are admitting they still don’t have an answer. In fact, I hardly ever hear psychiatry doing this.

  • I don’t think you quite do understand. While, I think it’s great that there are some caring individuals within the system. I think when we get into saying, there’s good, and bad like there is in every system. Granted I’m oversimplifying to make a point. We ignore a bigger issue at hand, the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts. Right now, the system is mostly flawed. Hypatheticly if enough people have changed for the better within, would it be enough to turn it around?

    More relevantly, there has just been not enough signs of overall change in many people’s eyes. You also have to understand that the mental health system allows force. So, while it may seem like some are painting the mental health systems in a way that’s unfairly skewed towards the nefitive, side, you must realize that there needs to be some compensation for the disadvantage. That’s not even going to how much wait is already placed as far as influence, and benefit of the doubt given to the other side. With force alone, it’s still happening, and this is not a system that typically gives people back their rights, unless it’s practically taken back from them. There are people’s rights at stake, so you have to understand why someone, wouldn’t be as concerned with making this system look bad. Even if there are certain people who were misjudged.

    The day, that everyone has the right to choose, at least I’ll rethink it. The same goes if there ever becomes a law based around making psychiatry, as a result of this illigeal. From where I stand people are neing denied a right to refuse on one side. I’m yet to hear of anyone being forced out, of weather working in, or receiving services in the mental health field. You’ve got to see why, when something starts out so uneven, it has to be approached that way.

  • You were pretty clear, but in case I prefer to try and avoid speaking for others. Althoug, it is pretty frustrating to see when somebody clearly did not listen, which brings me back to when people say suffering doesn ‘t prove mental illness, and then somebody else says, you’re not acknowledging the pain of people with mental illness are in pain.

    Gene, I’m not sure I understand wheat you mean. I’m not sure that statement was meant to be convincing of anything. I think it’s understood many including myself will always be against force. I think it meant that a reaction to chemicals isn’t evidence for a disease.

    Some doctors have inadvertently killed people. I think, your examples should give us more reason to fear, and not less. The first rule of medicine is do no harm, which makes them responsible for finding out dangers involved in a prescription. Yea, mistakes happen, but your mindset sounds like it could stunt accountability.

  • Good point, as it’s often a catch all. Athough, sometimes there is no known cause, but I thought that was at least stated, even when kind of implying something else.

    Although, it’s not helpful for me. As years of physical abuse of parents, including my mom suffocating me. I consider the fear to be legitimate, yet a therapist said I’m playing a victim role, because I didn’t think CBT was worth trying. Also I’m told stuff like there is evidence of underlining depression in addition to trauma. What is the typical person with my experiences supposed to look like?

  • Rasselas.redux I’m really not arguing against anti force by any means. You make very good points. While, I wouldn’t call it cherry picking, as force is in important thing to discourage whenever possible. I will say, that I’m not sure any of people listening were anti force. From my understanding they were talking about preventing more forced drugging. I wouldn’t settle for it, but perhaps even as a result, there won’t be forced drugging. I personally wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less than all forced drugging be illegal.

    However, BPD, some of what you say seems very valuable, and don’t take this the wrong way, but a lot of what you say seems one sided. Not saying you shouldn’t have your own opinion, but I think if you don’t always see where someone already agrees, or is aware of something you’re saying.

  • I thought Sandra already addressed a lot of those points. May, be a good idea, to listen and not just assume stuff. Especially when listing a lot of suggestions. Not, to say they may not be good, but it’s a lot, and sound like you don’t know where she is coming from, but I’m not her, so I don’t know. I know the comments to me seemed pretty assuming, and like you didn’t listen.

    However, partially was also saying this in hopes I didn’t come off that way. I’d suggested something, that I personally find useful. I also made sure to understand her point of view, and not assume. Granted, I guessed she may not be familiar with it. I also asked. A big reason too, I thought she may not’ve, as I don’t think it’s commonly used. Is typically only associated with med, compliance so it may be all she heard. A big reason though, was I was suggesting it to be used for purposes that may not be thought of. I also explained my thoughts, a bit. I tried not to ramble, but also wanted to give somewhat of an idea, in could either ask questions, or look into it more.

  • Replying here, because there isn’t a reply, to where I’m responding. Richard, after skimming the comments, I read through almost all your discussion with Jonathan, agreed there was a lot of comment, but just skimmed for something that stuck out. I only missed a couple, but read through the rest. Sorry, should’ve clarified that I was responding to them.

    Anyways, my question wasn’t about forced drugging, as I know you against it. Although, this was specifically about what you thought as jails, or an entirely different system, because I agree, with most as far as attempting to help people, and not forcing. I also agree that detainment of some kind needs to take place. However, this was about making the leagal system safer for everyone. That was my question. I meant it for, when you’re at the point of having to call the cops, do you think that improving the leagal system would help? Meaning, they’re there to only contain violence, and offer help. Just detain, as long as they will harm people, and offer help, but not force it.

  • I was referring to what the police are told. They are told, people with a diagnosis of psychosis are dangerous. They go in already expecting violence. I think they should always try, and desolate, any actual violence. However, them being told horror stories is not helpful, to a group, that isn’t even violent, and also, any incident is blamed on a so called illness. Then, psychiatrists wish to make a drug commercial. They don’t take any responsibility to there part, weather the direct, of drug, diagnosis, therapy, or indirect telling people that psychotics, are dangerous, and unpredictable, to get people to take drugs.

  • Not to mention, all the stories on psychiatrists who need to protect people from the violently mentally ill, may reduce some of the polices fear of them. Also, it may make people not think of themselves as out of control and dangerous. Maybe also if a police killed someone, it would turn into more than a mental health ad. Most, people who are perceived as straight up criminals, have families/friends who wish to investigate. They don’t jump to saying how they should’ve been treated. Obviously there are accretions to both, but that’s at least the side most people see.

  • Richard, also think police should be required to treat people humanely anyways. The leagal system isn’t that great anyways, and think people would at least want to reduce harm if anything else. Meaning, if people weren’t mistreated in jail, they may not hurt people. Also, for arguments sake, let’s pretend the mental health system is a perfectly humane system that is designed to help people. Is it really fair to draw a line, and say these people are in distress, but these other people are bad, and we ought to teach them a lesson? Aside from not being affective, likely everyone who is acting violently is in distress of some kind. Similarly, people should only be confined to the point they won’t hurt somebody, and they should be put in a situation that’s good when it happens. Meaning they have a place to stay, and food garenteed, and they are offered help finding employment, instead of being turned away. It may also attract people who wish to become police officers who wish to protect, and serve. If anything I think people would agree, for more peaceful ways, if it keeps them, and the ones they care about safe.

  • Well, I was more referring to violent people. I guess they could hit themselves, but restraining them could cause injury, and even death. Although, I would deffinatley agree no on the forced drugging. I think, they make stuff to cushion people’s, hands. That would at least he better than forces restraints, but I’m still sticking, to that they should only stick to confinement. It also is only to prevent violent acts on others.

  • I drank poison, so I’ve seen the inside of a hospital. Actually, I did see one guy get kind of violent, but luckily he just threw a chair, at a mirror, and no one was hurt, and smashed an apple. You forgot, constantly shining a light in someone’s face. This nurse was also antagonistic. Not, as a blanket statement, but a helping profession, was not for her. They almost put her on one to one, till I begged them to have someone else do it, because he was could’ve really hurt so one. It was teriying, and on the verge of tears until they agreed.

  • Here’s an idea, that’s somehow considered nuts, why don’t we change the legal system, so anyone who is a real danger to people, can only be detained in a humane way. They can choose to get help, not hurting others in anyway they choose, and make sure the people involved are willing to actually help them in the way they want. It’s better for everyone. They will likely feel better, and won’t be a threat. Then there will be no justified for force. No, harming others, and if they can do that, it’s all that matters.

  • I don’t really think forced drugging should be comprimised. If somebody is a harm to someone else, I don’t see why they should not just be detained in someway. However restrainsts, just seems unnecessary, not to mention dangerous. I’ve heard of people, being injured, or even dying as a result. Besides how is a person supposed to calm down if being strapped down. It’s counterproductive. I get the need to confide them if they are really a threat to people, but not strap them down.

  • Do you consider stuff like Nami, and APA mainstream, because I honestly see many people in the mental health community distancing themselves from that scene nowadays. Especially, APA. However, I mostly just hear about people talking about their families, which is kind of odd. I don’t know what is mainstream anymore, because the majority distances the self from what I previously conciddered “mainstream”

  • Thanks, Sandra you can see it’s been mostly cleared up, although still a bit confused. I have always seen this site as not having a clear enimy. The opinions are just to wide. Although, interesting as it would come up, because I was actually worried would be one of the exceptions. Xavier Armador, is probably pretty contracersal here. Although, I still find he has some really good stuff. I’ve only read “I’m Right ,Your Wrong, Now What?” I’ve put off reading, “I’m Not Sick I Don’t Need Help” Won’t enjoy it at all, but perhaps will tell me if there’s any hope of seperating. You’re good at getting others to see past differences. Think, LEAP will ever become more than a tool, for med compliance?

  • To clarify, I’ve often conciddered DSM, mental hospitals as mainstream psychology, simply because that is generally accepted. Not to say mainstream(in general) means it’s bad, but I would concidder, what Sandra to be reforming main stream psychology, and open dialogue is an alternative. It could be the new mainstream here, as it is elsewhere. Not, sure if it’s what you meant. Although, it sounds like she is calling for both alternative, and mainstream approach. At least what I consider mainstream. Some of here ideas about nutrients seem more, what I’d concidder alternative medicine.

  • Russerford, I’m not familiar with “mainstream psychiatry”. You mean, more traditional practices? I get it, but still seems like it may just bring conflict from another artical, which is just a little confusing, since you don’t appear to be trying to. The posturing makes sense. However, I’ve talked with people who were labled being in a severely, psychotic state, and don’t think they were dangerous. I think a lot of that comes from people’s own insecurity as to what they were saying. I also say that, as a doctor who admitted, he only said I was psychotic, when he really thought it was a mood disorder, but I had a choice to take mood stabilizers, and stop the antipsychotic. Like, I’m supposed to trust him. It was very much literally like doing time. He didn’t care, that I was the same exact, after his set time of how I needed to take the medicine. Sure, I’ve had situations where people were labeled as psychotic, come up with some things about me, that were pretty bad. However, I know who I am. A doctor never has, but people have said I was paranoid. As a result of, life, such as my mom suffocating me out of frustration. Another reason the dangerous excuse bothers me, people not labled psychotic are often dangerous. Glad, you realize the dangers of forced drugging. No, not coming off as a politician, although we could seriously use a politician who talk about stuff like this, and not just repeat psychiatrists.

  • Have to disagree with any forced drugging, or restraints. How, is someody who wants to kill the self going to be helped by that? More, like give them more reason to, and less likely to trust anybody. Drinking, poison to escape an abuseive home, combined, with not taking mood stabilizers, and criticizing the DSM, got me court ordered Antipsychotics. Doctor admitted he lied, about me being “psychotic”, because he can’t force mood stabilizers. He said he was pretty sure I was “bipolar”.
    Just as arbitrary as anything else. Also, assault is never okay, hence why forced drugging isn’t either. However, forced drugging will not help.

  • Don’t know where you got that? Most seem very positive to me, and the only thing critical was on forced drugs. Don’t understand “collaborator with the enimy”. Think you need to explain that more. Also, I’ve been on a court ordered medicine. So I guess that makes me have “real world credibility”. Depressing, but true. Posturing around? Are you serious? How do you know who’s helped people? Certainly it sounds good, and I’m sure it’s difficult to question something so ingrained in what one was taught. However what do you want people to say? That forced drugging can be okay?

  • Clearly, very different than in New England. Sounded like everyone agreed who spoke. Of course, finding ways in which people agree is always the best approach. The guy asking for the studies seemed like he could be between totally dismissing it, or completely converting. Although, the end more toward that latter.

    If I’m correct it’s largely to prevent, an alternative to more forced drugging? The people being largely focussed on would be not helping, and the ones not deemed by Vermont to require, forced drugging? Would they also, use this before going to court? Of course, we all know how easier preventing change is from reversing it. Especially in people’s perceptions.

    However, on a side note the people who are being deemed necessary for the drugs. A risk listed was, jail which, nobody would argue is not the goal. However, isn’t jail a risk in any situation? Although, not why I brought it up. I’m quite interested, and have used the LEAP system, to help with conflict . Heard of it? It was originally made for med compliance, but can’t even go there now. So, it’s expanded to general conflict, and works wonders. At least, this could bring it down to where it’s not so high tension, that it’s considered an emergency. While I have all sorts of ideas on untapped ways it could be implemented, it’s use for mental health’s main goal is pretty much med compliance.

    Basically, though it works to reflectively( listen )without judgement. To use your CIA example. I’m hearing the CIA, is bugging your phone. check in, am I hearing you right? . Not agreeing, just showing you heard it, no judgment. Empathy, that sounds really scary, and violating. I know I’d feel that way if it were me. (Apologies), I’m sorry, that people don’t believe you, and are putting you in a hospital and if this upsets you, but I am unaware of that happening. The police aren’t either(Acknowledge) the police, and I don’t know everything, so I’m not saying it isn’t happening. (Agree) I don’t want you to end up in a hospital, or take medicine. (Partner) How can we work together to not have that happen? The police usually send you, so how can we find a way to stop calling them together?

    It’s just an example, but hope it gets the gist.

  • Thanks! This system has worn me down, and the only thing that makes me feel it wasn’t totally in vain is to hopefully spread awareness. It’s helps to hear people say stuff like that. A therapist said I was playing the victim story, for stuff like not wanting to see that doctor, out of fear he would threaten me again. I was apparently ‘playing the victim story’, ‘fortune telling’ and ‘mind reading’ For wanting to distance myself from an abuser?

  • Yea, so it’s typical for psychiatrists to feel they are above the truth. Often they will say something like they were just doing it for the best. Sometimes it’s others people aren’t smart enough to understand their reasons. In fact a doctor openly lied to get me to legally take an antipsychotic. He said he didn’t think it was psychosis, but since he couldn’t legally take a mood stabilizer he would say it was. Me not taking a mood stabilizer was “not giving him any other options, because I didn’t want to accept help”.

    Another doctor diagnosed me as intellectual disability. I said no doctor thought I was retarded in the past. He kept denying it was the same thing, when I clearly knew it was. He often blatantly lied like this, or an explanation for being caught in a lie, would be just, why he was right, but not acknowledge the lie.

  • Everybody is the way they are due to their brain and environment interacting, but this doesn’t prove the existence of scrhitzophrenia. I think he kind said that at one point. However, too much time talking about what he didn’t mean, then what he was did mean. Yes, the way our brains interact with the world shapes us. Can’t think of anybody who wouldn’t believe this, and don’t think it’s a matter of believing in DSM labels, or finding psychotropics helpful. However what I would ask is if it’s adaptation, then who’s to say it’s not for a valid reason? Why should we start off trying to change the way people thinking before understanding the reason, or if this will lead to something better? He talks about needing new ways of thinking, so what? We can all think the same correct way? The worlds pretty messed up, so how is failing to adapt to it a disease?

  • I don’t disagree, on that point either, but meant angles to refer to the many sides it will take. Although I thought about that after I posted. The message there was a more concrete. I don’t see one foolproof way, and don’t think turning on someone will help. It caught me off guard. It did seem cult like. I thought one thing we were fighting for was to have our own voice. Plant? This site has such a wide range of opinions. What would that look like?

    I appreciate what you have to say too Alex. I find your comments to be diplomatic, and well spoken.

  • Alex makes a good point. I also think this will take many angels. Although, these statements are pretty broad, so I’m not sure what you are referring to. Psychiatry, has many conflicting opinions, and are always at each others throats about something. If you question someone’s motives then the best anyone can do is continue to spread the truth, and encourage others to. Psychiatry puts a lot of emphasis on a unified group, and with all their power it even costs them. If there one known way to end psychiatrie’s oppression, then I’m sure many would be on board. Till, then I think everyone’s just doing their best. If someone’s on the fence about anything, it would be best not to make the same mistake as them, and throw them under the bus. Not saying you were, but a lot of people in this movement were gained from being ostracized simply by questioning psciatry.

  • Well, asking anyone to take down anything would be a challenge if not forced. Lots of people request stuff to be taken down all the time, but it’s not censorship. As far as mental health stereotypes being a hate speech, I don’t disagree, but many came from the mental health feild. If there was no stereotyps like the ones in this field, it would be hard to keep the field from crumbling. That’s also why it would be hard to make something like this stick. However, people poising something, and giving counter information is the best they can do. Nothing can get changed, if soething doesn’t happen right away.

  • They are also cycling through the same information, and until they no longer have any authority it will keep this happening. However, if they don’t have the authority, they will need a new tactic other than installing fear, and then they won’t have anything. Other than that the best is to get the majority to see what’s happening, especially people passing laws. They are only driven by fear as well right now.

  • I don’t doubt this, as I believe anosognosia, was largely influenced by similar circumstances. I have mixed feelings about the Leap Program by Xavier Amador, as it’s largely about coaxing people into treatment, however I think a lot of it’s sucres was based on his care for his brother Henry. I even find it to a good tool in any conflict resolution, which it has also been expanded to. However there is much of a one sided perspective on medicine. It’s too bad, because I know I’ve benefitted by using it in situations that seemed hopeless. Seeing as psychiatrists are often insulted by simple questions, and will even threaten anyone who asks them, it can provide a bit of a safety net. Coming from someone constantly threatened, and acused of interrogating them.

  • Although frightening, hopefully there will be a time when all of this can be made useful. Some of the things he is saying, should make people avoid psychiatry altogether. Just goes to show, that this is field is able to get by on fear, and is exempt from winning people over with reason.

  • If someone has been harmed, or someone they care about they may not be inclined to add a disclaimer. I don’t like psychiatry either, but if someone is already insecure, or feeling that it’s the only hope, giving them access to other information is good, then that may be all they can focus on. however, a big concern is if everyone, advocating against psychiatry gives disclaimers, it could be an excuse for forced medicine. I know you are against it, but, I feel ending it will require a lot more biased towards the harm it causes.

  • Corinna, sounds like your approach works well for you, but I don’t think that disclaimers are a must in every situation. I agree diplomacy is important, but if I’m telling about my experience with something, don’t think it would discredit anyone else. I also find that this problem could use more than one approach, including ones that are only critical, because not only is psychiatry regarded as experts, but also given authority. People who have been harmed greatly also may not feel like there is any positive side. The reverse is true who feel it it essential to them, but at the end of the day people need to be told to do what they believe is right. However giving another side can be good, even though not everyone may acknowledge both of them. Nuance can also be archived by people as whole. Although I do agree that systems, set in place should try try and have many perspectives within them.

  • “Donning the robe of a “great crusader” to save something everyone agrees with in the first place (“normal” people don’t need antipsychotics)” Rossa, agreed that’s what I’ve been trying to say about him. Nothing groundbreaking in this “over medication” breakthrough idea. Combibe that with the already preconceived notion that people are going undetected that need it. Same story, same lack of solution.

  • Seth, I do notice, that he seems to aiming at “psychotics”, in particular the most. Although, I’ve heard him go after people who he thinks don’t need the medicine, and I am getting that there is no line between them. He’s also gone after the people who supposedly over prescribe, which is also hard to distinguish. I see those projects as the same as well. He seems to want to create a wedge between, the “ill”, and the “well”. I see a lot of irony, and absurdity. The more I look for answers the burrier it becomes. I wouldn’t be surprised if he says medicine is an art, especially since he seems to be saying mental illness too complicated to point to any physical proof. Only along with this critasizing left, and right, preaches unity, as the solution. Is he just trying to divert people from criticizing the real problems with psychiatry. Aside from the fact that they’re outlandish, his ideas of cutting back on medicating people, it would hurt the field, a lot. You’d think he’d get backlash. Unless nobody expects this to happen. Although the whole “undermedicated” theory and, his ideas for that are frightening. Obviously, a lot is about more forced meds. They’re even throwing people who take them willingly under the bus, from taking it away from people who don’t even want them. Because they don’t expect medicine when they aren’t sick, from a doctor. Whatever it is, to stop the forced medicine has to be the start. If it starts, now we could prevent a lot stuff from both occurring and cementing. It’s tough, but if done right will be unbeatable. Psychiatry, right now doesn’t have to explain themselves. If enough people point out, how they aren’t, or the lies. Just, right now people aren’t even willing to ask questions. They just want laws passed, where the psychiatrists can decide everything, without ever asking anything. Judges barely look up, and just nod.

  • Philip, you bring up many of the things I’ve asked him, and thought of many times. I don’t agree on many of his views on a clear cut group who are needlessly on him, or the reverse. However even if I’m wrong, Allen Francis offers no solution to this problem. It’s not like psychiatrists will put a sign on their office door, labeled over prescribing. There would be no way to tell either way. This seems to be what everyone was saying. He had claimed antipsychotics weren’t adding to worse psychosis, and the number of psychosis hasn’t got up. I asked where he got that, because even according to him, the criteria has widened. He never answered. I had guessed it wasn’t from people diagnosed, as along with most of the world, he seems to reject that as valid. What puzzles me the most, is how he says it like it’s clear cut. People need to stop taking medicine that don’t need it, and people who need it should get it. Yet, he never addresses how one would even know the difference between these supposed pill fanatics, and responsible prescribers. He also never mentions, the conflict of the need to identifie clear cut disorders, in a book that supposedly is full of flaws. He just lists subjective actions. Don’t over prescribe, don’t under prescribe, use better diagnostic processes and tools. Regaurdless of someone’s opinion, this is not helpful. According to him it takes an expert in psychiatry to distinguish, but it sounds like he’s saying it would take an expert to dituingh its real experts. He claims for a middle way, but offers no clear explanation. We can also prescribe 1/4 of all people, by putting everyone’s name in a hat, and calling it the middle way, and it could be considered a middle way, but won’t make it sesible.

  • Hopefully it will come through. Judges sign off on forced treatment without batting an eye. The judge signed off on this psychiatrist to put me on any melds at his discression. He said he would tell them I was psychotic if I didn’t take something thought was bipolar. He justified living, because he’d said mood stableizers couldn’t be forced on me. He’d claimed I’d given him no other options, and even though anti psychotics were a more indirect way to deal with a mood disorder it would have to do. He said it was okay for doctors to say what they had to to get pairings treatment. The judge just agreed to keep me comimited, and medicated for as long as he decided. He just ended up telling me I had to stay on one antipsychotic before I could be released, unless I agreed to a mood stabilizer. I felt like a prisoner serving time. He didn’t care how this effected me at all.

    I hope all forced treatment, and commitment is illegal. Right, now even the legal system pretty much just listens to psychiatrists. It’s a joke as far as I see. Psychiatry, giving full reign to psychiatry. They don’t seem to have to follow any rules, or guidelines, because they can just make up them up as they go. I’ve had them make so many baseless claims, only to get a response like it’s complicated we are the experts. It’s not like most judges will be checking for accuracy in their claims. It’s not like they are afraid of being reprimanded for flat out lying. A doctor put a flat out lie in my medical report, to avoid admitting he didn’t know what he was talking about. He changed a previous diagnosis. He changed MDD to mood disorder NOS. When I asked I had more than depression. Is complete nonsense even for the DSMs standard. I venture to guess it was so he wouldn’t have to give an opinion, while still implying I had a mood disorder. Especially since he listed my man problems as ADHD inattentive, and intellectual disability. This is based on a previous diagnosis of aspergers, which not only was officially ruled out years later, but made three years after he claimed. I hadn’t wanted to go near another neuropsyc test, but apparently he didn’t need one to come up with another ridiculous label. Would being evaluated count? I don’t believe in the DSM, and think I should have the right to know I won’t just have whatever label they decide to stick me with on record somewhere.

  • Seemed odd his way of trying to win people here over, but perhaps he is realizing that it’s never going to happen. Although I guess anyone who wishes to address him directly could go to this article. There definitely seems to be a separation. It makes sense when he might not want to post directly to this site, given most people’s stance towards his views. Are there people not on this site, who would be following this discussion? I don’t know, but this is one of the most one sided responses I’ve ever seen. He clearly takes so much out of context, at least completely bends the truth, and over emphasizes what he wants to see.

  • You do have a point, because he definitely seems to be attempting to distance himself for sure. However, I’d be curious to who exactly he’s criticizing in the psychiatry field. I mean DSM 5 is pretty much mocked everywhere, including mainstream psychiatry. They even make excuses like they were behind in deadlines. He also doesn’t call anyone out, or give examples of what specifically is wrong. He just says meds are overpresrecribed, or for too little long where they shouldn’t be. He, however never says how exactly we can determine these cases differ from those who truly need them, or who’s to blame. Pretty agreed upon. Do you think he’s also holding out on some level, that psychiatry will recover from all of this? He also seems to want to get people who were wronged or are critical on his side. He seems to portray an odd mix of desperation, and arrogance. I just happen to search him to see if anything new came up, and coincidently he just responded to this very post. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal/201602/do-antipsychotics-help-or-harm-psychotic-symptoms

  • This seems to be fairly average, to think ones opinion to be a perfect balance between two extremes, but still baffling to try and bring the seemingly different points of view together, while also condensing everybody. Especially when saying pretty agreed upon, in general. Even the mental health field had criticized the broadening of diagnosis. They also claim that people are under medicated. It’s also become a popular phrase that the jails are the new mental hospital. I don’t hear anyone arguing that getting locked up for petty reasons, or having legitimate problems, that it can be made worse by being locked up. However, I’m at a loss to what Allen Framsis wishes to accomplish by insisting that everyone is really focussing on the wrong things. I don’t see a point on trying to win over people to a point of view they probably will never agree to. Especially when a lot of it’s condescending, and supposed to be taken at face value. Not to mention, none of it groundbreaking. It’s just do this, because otherwise bad things will happen. Hypothetically we unite deal with all these supposed worse problems, and are left with the mental health system, then what? Then we can fix all these problems he is dismissing, or will we still have to accept it as good enough? For this to even happen hasn’t been clearly stated. Stop over diagnosing, treat the right people, so they don’t end up wrongly incarcerated. Last, focus on what really matters, and find common ground. How? Very subjective, and no clear solutions.

  • A lot of what I figured. Being familiar with this field for most of my life, and seeing terms flipped on a switch, and all kinds of questionable things, I don’t give them much merit. Although, it didn’t seem to be the focus, and more about the meds long term effect. Of course with any interaction there has to be some common understanding. Though I found it articulate in what it was emphasizing.

    It make sense to me that you would want to focus on a specific area, while also facilities broader conversations. This field has problems everywhere you look, and going at it from as many angles, will not hurt.

    I say take away the power balance first. This doctor at an impatient ward said he suspected I had bipolar, but since I refused, had openly fabricated a story of how I was psychotic. He said he’d think a mood stableizer would be more direct. He also thought it was ok to lie, and claimed I didn’t leave him other options.

    I’ve been told I have this, or that disorder, and don’t find them valid. However the judge granted this guy the right to put me under court ordered antipchotic at this guy’s complete discression, which could’ve been never if I agree to a mood stableizer. Luckily I only went on for a few weeks or so, because he couldn’t force me when I left, and said I needed to stay for a few weeks on one type. Nothing changed, just going through the motions like a prizoner would. However some states can get court ordered Med Rogers, on the outside, and people need to report to doctors, like they’re on probation. Also he could’ve kept me pretty much indefinitely. So first thing I say is we at least get rid of that, as a main priority.

  • Perhaps, I should’ve mentioned my parents were paying for this treatment. In other situations, I probably would’ve got PTSD, as McLains has said I had it, however it’s really all quite arbitrary, in my opinion anyways. Even the ones diagnosing said stuff like that, when questioned by my parents.

    The family theoropist, who I never saw, because I didn’t like her, and my parents said they were too busy to see, who insisted on remaining on the team, said my parents were very dedicated. This psychiatrist agreed, knowing they abused me. In fact, my mom even physically suffocated me, for arguing back. I really don’t believe they ever cared, and think they only pretend. Now especially, because I drank poison a couple years ago in attempts to get away from them. When I am financially able, I want nothing to do with them.

  • Most of my problems come from trauma, that I know of. Actually the reason I ended up in the mental health system, was from my mom taking me to doctors since I was a babie. She had told me I just didn’t seem quite ‘right’, and was too lethargic. How one determines a baybe is ‘too lethargic’ is beyond me. In fact my mother didn’t even agree with this diagnosis, but was persuaded pretty easily. It really makes me wonder, how she had such a tough time accepting nothing was wrong. Then again, it always seemed like the diagnosis, was just an excuse for mistreatment. I’m, however I’m taking courses, from a company based on Jungian Type theory, that is helping with much of the trauma.

    Yea, apparently he’s a pretty rigid, his way or no way, and me not going along just pushed it over the edge. That’s what I’ve been told anyways, and I’d believe it. He’s also the medical director. Much power, and the place was supposedly progressive too. Yea, meds are generally unhelpful. I, had taken clonidine to elevate tics, which I believed led to the abuse, to find out I still felt just as horrible, and even worse. Till I got the rebound tics, and felt even worse. It’s, odd to think, always, have been told something was wrong with me. Physically, and verbally attacked at any moment. These people have no idea, what the effects are like, or how I’d otherwise be, yet they say they do.

  • The DSM 5, also excluded the IQ score as a criteria of intellectual disability. the psychiatrist labeled me as this based on previous Neropsyches. I told him that schools, and doctors specifically said I had a learning disability, and wasn’t retarded. However he claims intellectual disability is different, and he’s going off of the DSM 5 criteria, and asks if I want to see it. He says it’s different because it doesn’t need to include IQ for criteria. I say I’m going off the DSMs definition which says revised from mental retardation, and he doesn’t want to talk labels.

    I was diagnosed from 6, to 16 with aspergers, that actually got ruled out, officially right before release of DSM 5. I was redignosed as ADHD Innatentive Type, Learning Disability Nos visual spacial deficit, major depressive disorder, and general anxiety disorder. Part of his reasoning, something like I improved on my repetitive behaviors, and thinking but still struggle socially, so the Aspergers Disorder I received at 3 no longer applies, and could be better explained by intellectual disability. The repetive, and obsessive nature was also a main reason for diagnosis, and a lot of the social skills piece didn’t fit. They however said, it was just a ‘pice to the puzzle’, and I didn’t need all of them. He also listed mood disorder NOS, as previous diagnosises. He said something like problems with mood, or mood disturbance but didn’t make any diagnosis. When asked, why he changed a previous diagnosis, he said it was more than depression. When I pointed out all the ways it made no sense, he no longer wanted to talk about diagnosises. convenient, change a previous diagnosis, to one not currently listed, as way to be vague on where he stands. I had problems with mood, but main problems were ADHD Innatentive Type, and Intelectual Disability.

    I would have to agree that DSM 5 has a ton of leeway, for clanitions. I personally was trying to avoid being pegged with anything in this system, as I heard nothing, but negative reviews, and really haven’t found past versions helpful , but it turns out all he had to do was read over old testing. You kind of get that a system isn’t great when people on the board creating it, also mock it. I’ve seen interviews where they openly call it a joke, and useless. Aside from APA, who of course will defend it. As the person told me, when I called them for answers, Their job is to ‘represent psychiatrists’.

  • Some really great points were brought up, and would say one of the big ones is the divide this has created. Also the problem with self stigma. If a person is feeling bad about themselves, talking about stigma will probably only make them feel worse, and make people who are either unsympathetic more engaged, and people who feel like tjheir trying to understand defensive. I however think the worry about how they could be perceived plays a big part. That could be hard to be avoided though. However, many did report self stigma, which in itself is a problem. I wouldn’t exclude where they may be being stigmatized, however wonder what’s being done to address their own self stigma. I, would hope that they would be able to see some good in themselves.

    I don’t know if the word stigma though in itself is all to helpful. I think perhaps that’s one thing that could help this situation a little more. I would say people having self doubt, or experiencing a lack of compassion, or negative feedback. This is pretty relatable to everyone, and think the important thing is to actually talk about the problem. Self doubt, and reviving lack of compassion is something everyone knows to some degre. That’s something they can relate to. I think telling people they should make more of an effort to be more understanding, and compassionate, would be a lot more useful, than saying you should stop stigmatizeing people. Who could honestly look at themselves, and say I’m always completely understanding, and compassionate, and it would not be possible? The problem with self doubt might be harder, although everyone has it to some degre, and think the best way would be to help them find what’s good about themselves, and others also experience self doubt. There are many things that could be done, however both of these things are complex. I think a big part would be realizing that everyone experiences all of these things.

    I think the points you made about the reports of patients are also an important factor, as they are often based on what’s wrong. The same goes with evaluations. A person can internalize, but like you said about your pataints, they often don’t live up to them. I would say that is a huge factor, as well. To a degree, these are often how people labeled mentally ill are perceived publicly, and people may to degree wonder, or believe some of these things.

    However, this is important that it be talked about in this specific way. The most important thing I believe you brought up is it’s not that clear cut. While I don’t agree with all the conclusions, and ideas, and overall views on mental health, think this can at least point to something more than the endless back and forth, about stigma. The idea, where people must either be fixing, or berating someone.

  • James, while I would agree that, looking at the issue is far more complicated then to just point towards people labeling someone with a diagnosis. I however, do think that it can play a big role. The reason, being it was designed to point to something wrong, lacking, or abnormal about them. I get that it is supposed to be helpful, for them to receive help for those experiencing difficulties. I however dissagree that the best way is a diagnosis. In fact, I’m not sure the label would, make someone anymore compassionate who would otherwise stigmatize someone. If you described their specific situation, it could, but then aren’t they just empathising, or sympathing like they would to any person who’s ever struggled, because they know that nobodies perfect including the self?

    Another thing I want to bring up, is these people who are in need of help, are probably well aware that they are not meeting expectatations, or noticeably struggling. I don’t really think that’s the time to put an official name to it. They’re probably the last people who need a name for their struggles. They need hear, what’s positive about them, and their strengths. Other people need to hear this to. There of course should be help in ways they need it. However, while focussing mainly strengths , so people really want to help. I know this person struggles with blank, but you know what it doesn’t even matter because they are one of the people I know who can do blank. If you get to know them, you won’t regret it, they’re one the best friends I have.

    Also you really have to get to know someone on an individual level, with all the variations, and overlap. I know for some people it can be helpful, in certain aspects, but isn’t that more from an individual description. I still think general things people struggle with is ok to note. In fact what I’m studying mentions it, but focusses more on strath, and I want to reiterate people seeking, or being tested probably need that the most. That’s why I think they should feel empowered, is because what’s good about them. I think compassion, and realizing their not alone in certain struggles is good, but don’t think they need to much reminders that they have them.

    Lastly I want to just say although I disagree with a lot of specifics, but glad you brought it up, and think you have some really good points. There needs to be discussion, before saying without mental health there will be stigma, or without there would be no stigma. Similarly to the idea, people either have to be completely unsympathetic, to someone’s struggles, or believes it caused by an illness. There has to be a more honest discussion, that takes everything into account, tries to avoid confirmation bias, and looks for a solution.