Tagged: Murphy bill talking points
July 11, 2016 at 11:27 pm #79020
I just read the NCMHR “talking points.” They are totally inadequate in my view and do not constitute a winning formula, and are all from the perspective of those who believe that the “mental health” system is basically valid and just needs some tweaks. And in my view this is guaranteed to get us screwed like we already did by the House. Here they are, judge for yourself:
1.Nothing about us without us. HR 2646 excludes the voice of people who have lived experience with mental health issues in decisions that dramatically affect our lives.
2.The bill expands grant funding and the timeframes for Assisted Outpatient Treatment. There is no evidence that outpatient commitment is more effective than voluntary care.
3.HR 2646 significantly weakens the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
4.HR 2646 uses “anosognosia” [pronunciation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVo2QZ29q_c as a rationale to relax confidentiality issues and promote forced treatment. There is no scientific basis for anosognosia in mental health.
5.The bill is hostile to programs and concepts of recovery.
6.Increased services in the community are needed; they cannot be replaced by hospitals.
Is this the best we can do? I don’t think so. What about fighting totalitarianism and genocide, isn’t that the real issue? Not that we shouldn’t be familiar with the liberal mh perspective, but staying within those boundaries is a losing strategy for sure; to create public support we have to let people know to know the whole truth about psychiatry, not just the part that “advocates” can talk about without losing their system paychecks.
What do others think about these “talking points”?July 12, 2016 at 4:33 am #79025
I totally agree Oldhead, particularly regarding the 1st one. With a 422-2 vote, they just passed legislation without “us” and obviously didn’t care that they did.
Yes, we have to let people know the truth about psychiatry. However, if the debate starts getting framed as psychiatry needing to be permanently banished, that will be a big time losing battle. Many folks hate extremity on both sides of a debate and the key is to get their support without antagonizing them.July 12, 2016 at 9:39 am #79028
I agree. First of all, they would not succeed at all for an audience that has no knowledge of the buzzwords
1. “Even though we’re crazy, we should make our own decisions.” (That’s how it sounds to the psychiatry-naïve)
2. Doesn’t say what AOT is or what’s wrong with it
3. Doesn’t say why SAMHSA shouldn’t be weakened
4. Arcane point. Fact is some people do think they’re fine when they’re not.
5. Recovery is a buzzword, but people don’t know that; thus this seems unlikely/irrational
6. People don’t want “mentally ill” people in their communities. They want them locked up
I would say:
1. The Murphy Bill was influenced by one of the most inhumane psychiatrists in modern history
Lieberman: Ritalin studies, Racist NY Times letter in favor of hogtie, letter to UN complaining about their definition or torture, which is too similar to psychiatry’s practices of restraint and forced drugging
2. Murphy is misinformed about the effectiveness of present day therapeutic efforts
[depicts Murphy with a quote from his site on worsening MI indicators despite billions spent]
3. The bill is vague about who qualifies as a caregiver. Anyone who does qualify may view your medical records and direct your care, i.e. approve forced drugging (fact-check needed)
4. The bill fails to acknowledge the high rate of treatment failure and the profound costs to individuals and society when predictable side-effects cause suffering far worse than the condition being treated or permanently disable the patient, physically, intellectually, and emotionally.
5. AOC is coerced therapeutic effort [always looking for a better term for “treatment”] outside of a hospital setting. Coerced care would be unnecessary if ordinary care improved well-being. Enforcing it in a person’s home takes away the meaning of home as safe and privateJuly 12, 2016 at 8:13 pm #79067
Better Life & AA, good points, I’ll try to expand asap.July 12, 2016 at 10:52 pm #79069
1. “Nothing about us without us.” — They don’t respect us & see no reason why we should have input, so this falls on uncomprehending ears.
2. “There is no evidence that outpatient commitment is more effective than voluntary care.” Huh? Effective at what? We don’t want “effective treatments,” that’s not what this is about. We want freedom from all coercive psychiatric procedures, period. It’s a basic human right.
3. “It weakens SAMHSA” — Who gives a shit? We don’t want their money anyway.
4. “There is no scientific basis for anosognosia in mental health.” — There is no scientific basis for the concept of “mental health” period, not just “anosognosia,” which is simply a way of discrediting people’s insight into the fact that their problems are not diseases.
5. “Hostile to concepts of recovery” — Again, who cares about their hostility as long as they can’t force stuff on us?
6. “Increased services in the community are needed; they cannot be replaced by hospitals.” — What sorts of “services”? Food, money and shelter are our primary needs, is that what they mean? Otherwise, again, no thanks.
We shouldn’t be patterning our talking points after these. We need a completely different approach. Let’s work on some better ones.July 13, 2016 at 4:36 pm #79089
Only abolition matters. No apologism, no more compromise.
You have to stop even holding the pretense that this is a legitimate branch of medicine, because the backers of this horrible monstrosity certainly don’t care about the truth. Nazis will always be Nazis, they never change.July 13, 2016 at 8:57 pm #79092
True. The Dragon of Psychiatry must be slain. It is not a dragon to reform or to domesticate. Like the archer who felled the great Smaug, we must make our aim true.July 13, 2016 at 10:06 pm #79093
So it looks like we agree about system-friendly “talking points” — great! Now lets start developing our own (specifically anti-Murphy) talking points. Someone else start please.July 14, 2016 at 6:24 am #79096
Making this about abolishing psychiatry is a big time losing point.
But what about making the argument that if this type of legislation was passed regarding any other group of people, it would be perceived as extremely hateful? I don’t know how to exactly word this but I thought I would start here.
We also need to have a few coherent talking points that gets everyone’s immediate attention. Too long of a list will cause us not to be heard.July 14, 2016 at 2:03 pm #79108
Abolishing psychiatry would not be relevant to a specifically anti-Murphy coalition, I wouldn’t worry about that.
I agree with the second point; I compare this — as someone else, maybe Val Marsh(?) did — to the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans. (And I think “mental illness” should be considered hate speech, but that’s too deep for the public to understand right now.)July 15, 2016 at 5:01 am #79116
[commencing long rambling post] (I hope I am not posting this twice. Thought I just hit submit, but cannot find it.)
“But what about making the argument that if this type of legislation was passed regarding any other group of people, it would be perceived as extremely hateful?”
But it would not be passed against any group of people. “The mentally ill” (“mentill”?) aren’t people. There is no other group that can be discussed as if they weren’t in the audience, ridiculed as if they can’t work a computer and see what’s written. The mentill are subhuman, no doubt about it, and therefore laws about “helping” them don’t have to be appropriate for human beings.
There might not be a logical argument. The bill was passed with stories, some false. Maybe we should stay in storyland.
I’d love to have seen Murphy and the true believers lobbying the House so we’d know what we are countering. Know what? Maybe we should approach Justin Amash and the the other rep, from Kentucky, who voted “no” and find out what the “sell” was.
We can suspect that it was partly false stuff about James Holmes, Eliot Rodger, Aaron Alexis, etc, not being treated. Then some specious statistics about 40% of us being mentill and only 40% of the mentill being treated.
The Holmes etc stuff is easiest to combat because it’s false. But what if you did convince people that mass murder is caused by psychiatrists? What would they want done about it?
Maybe the tack should be “Murphy snowed you. He snowed you because the NRA wants wants the focus off guns, so they’re scapegoating innocent people who happen to hear voice sometimes? (Murphy is an NRA-approved legislator.)
Lieberman went before some legislative body to argue in favor of the bill. We could probably tear holes in what he said.There must be a transcript somewhere.
Could we convince Left-leaning senators that this bill has nothing to do with the well-being and happiness of the diagnosed, and everything to do with trying to keep the diagnosed drugged so they won’t make guns look bad? If so, then it’s one more step to convince them that psychiatry causes mass shootings rather then preventing them and *suggest that the bill is doomed to INCREASE mass shootings.*
I THINK NRA is a big proponent of the “it’s not guns, it’s mental illness” meme. Would they be receptive to “it’s not mental illness, it’s psych drugs, and that’s easier to fix than “mental illness.”
Vioxx victims had a voice, even though they died. Thalidomide (sp) victims don’t even need a voice. Rarely mentioned:
“Primarily prescribed as a sedative or hypnotic, thalidomide also claimed to cure “anxiety, insomnia, gastritis, and tension.” Afterwards, it was used against nausea and to alleviate morning sickness in pregnant women.”
It was a psych drug.
Still, to vote No, they’d need to believe there’s an alternate plan that would work better. Remind them that the homeless schizophrenia patient is moneyless before he is homeless.
How about showing them what a waste the billions we sunk into NIMH under Insel proved to be. He admits he got nothing done.
Who are we talking to? The 100 senators? Or the few thousand people who can be induced to contact their senators?July 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm #79124
A lot of this resonates with me; will get more specific later.July 16, 2016 at 6:21 am #79155
Sorry, my post wasn’t clear. What I was trying to say was since this type of legislation wouldn’t be passed regarding any other group, why would it be ok to do this with folks with an “mi” label?
Of course, you could be right that they think it is ok due feeling that folks with this label are subhuman. Then again, if you called them out on their prejudices, would that work? I don’t know.
I like your points about emphasizing how costly this legislation will be and being snowed my Murphy regarding NRI talking points.
Not sure about convincing people that drugs are damaging since it so inbedded in this culture that they work wonders. Not that we shouldn’t try to do this but I don’t think this strategy will help prevent Murphy type legislation. But I could be missing something.July 16, 2016 at 1:32 pm #79166
Not sure about convincing people that drugs are damaging since it so inbedded in this culture that they work wonders. Not that we shouldn’t try to do this but I don’t think this strategy will help prevent Murphy type legislation. But I could be missing something.
I think this is the key to victory actually, though a very daunting task: to engage in an all-out anti-drug education effort. There’s so much evidence to back this up, but we need to get it organized and accessible for people to cite as needed.
Once people know how dangerous and destructive these drugs are, and that they are not “medicine,” they will be more likely to oppose coercive administration.July 16, 2016 at 2:22 pm #79167
Good points Oldhead.
You hit the nail on the head with getting the information organized and accessible.
The forum ‘Organizing for Social Change’ is closed to new topics and replies.