Wednesday, April 14, 2021

Writing Off The Antipsychiatry Movement

Home Forums Rethinking Psychiatry Writing Off The Antipsychiatry Movement

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 45 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #73182
    kayla
    Participant

    I see this a lot, and it either stems from two different notions. I, at least, typically see it as, a means of suppressing it, or fear of it being suppressed. Either somoebody just wants to stop people from questioning it, or somebody is afraid, that good points can be wrongfully ignored. As of now it’s often a subgroup. There are groups where it is the main focus. However, I want to make a group where it is the main focus. By doing that I also want to include other aspects where it’s often in the baxkeound. I do realize unofficially in many way this is already occurring on MIA, given a lot of people are Antipsychiatry. However, I don’t want people to be able to be able to use that to disregard what people are saying for any reason. Especially, when the negive effects are known. Granted, I get why somebody would not personally identifie as this. However, if are worried that somehow, they’ve said something valid, and it will be lost, than wouldn’t a valid solution be to start getting people to see this as a valid movement. Especially when many of the people criticizing see value in the information being put forth. Not to mention, the people really harmed by this movement. The compassionate thing to do is not to critasize a word choice. People say well they’re not looking at the whole picture, and mentioning the positive it can do. Well, since I don’t personally have much of any positive things to say about it I’ll give an example of something else.

    I know there are anti force, of any kind, movements. However this is still a part of psychiatry, and it can’t be ignored. In fact I don’t even concidder it a question when deciding weather to call myself psychiatry. While I see a lot of there work as great, as far as bring forward evidence of the harm that comes with force. I have heard occasionally people try to downplay this as it’s improving, well, maybe, but it’s still very much apparent. I also find this offensive, as someone who has had this happen to me. Why is it acceptable for this only to go down. Also offensive that we should only be doing this more in extreme cases. A doctor openly lied about me being psychotic. He did this, becauen I refused to take mood stabilizers. However, I’m not about to say, over use of power. Doctors should have to present better evidence of psychosis. I don’t agree with any of their assessments. While just the idea, of what little boundaries they have when it comes to this. Keep in mind, when I talk about my case, it’s important to remember he told me he didn’t believe I was psychotic, so while I considered the term invalid, it just speaks to the level of power they have, and know they have. I’m offended, when people suggesest laws of stricter forced treatment. It’s like they want to create a devide. They want people who would no longer be directly effected, to just nod, so somebody else, could be subject to this. Even if it were that straight forward, which most of know it’s not, how offensive to suggest we would just throw someone else under the bus. Especially to those of us who experienced this before.

    Luckily though most of the anti force, advocacates, even who don’t like to identify as Antipsychiatry, don’t say offensive things like that. I realize the stricter laws group don’t qualify, but I also want to talk about false peacemakers. I was interested in Allen Frances seems to always talk about this so called reconciliation. I figured no one would buy this. This guy seems to completely lack tact, dismissing everybodies problems like that. Talking about reconciling two groups, who everybody knows will never see eye to eye. He clearly isn’t offering any new solutions. However some people at first seemed to at least see this at attempts for diplomacy. I was surprised, that some even called him smoothie. I thought he’d given it a rest, but a new arrival calling for reconciliation. Not to interesting, that you haven’t heard. Also arguing with someone, if you can call it that. They’re argument against Antipsychiatry, is all stuff only against Antipsychiatry, which I know nothing about. Although the good, news is they appeared very ignorant and only didn’t even have much to say about this group, as most of there critisism, was directed at Scientology. Oddly enough there personal there reasoning probably wouldn’t even fair well with Allen, as his main goal seems to involve forced drugging. last I checked ADD diagnosis doesn’t qualify. However, was beginning to wonder if writing is was pointless, but one of the other commenters at least sees what he’s doing. Many of you probably do, but I just worry if all this talk of reconciling will in anyway lead people to believe he’s taking a higher ground. He also fits into the wanting us to throw people under the bus category.

    Here it is. I want others to know behind the talk of helping, he offers no solution. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal/201602/psychiatry-and-antipsychiatry

    #73183
    kayla
    Participant

    I want to specifie, the reason I’m very concerned goes beyond harm of medication, and forced treatment. It pours over to his attempts to divide the movement, and appear on a higher ground. It should be pointed out, underneath this is nothing. If he’s concerned about people being homeless, raise money for them. Don’t see anybody faulting him for that.

    #75944
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Again, confrontational protests, signed religious rejection letters to administrators, going after individual white coats. They can try to write us off all they want. I for one don’t care because I don’t plan on talking to them any way. Just keep the pressure on and bring them down. Gandhi called it Satyagraha, meaning applying pressure, and he developed the doctrine from reading the Bible.

    Nomadic

    #76020
    nooneinparticular
    Participant

    If my understanding is correct…

    psychosis is a temporary state
    when someone is actively psychotic, there ought to be physical signs that could be detected
    both of these are functions of the human brain when exposed to certain conditions, stimuli, etc…

    Maybe my layman’s understanding is wrong, but convicting someone as a lifelone psychotic is a nightmare… and once people are marked and stigmatized all their life, what good is left in their life?

    I don’t want to be forced into the life I’m expected to lead just because someone decided from on high that I was invalid as a child, and kept pushing me through unnecessary cruelty. They denied me a life growing up, and they’re denying me the present. I guess it’s a case of those who control the present controlling the past, those controlling the past controlling the future.

    Unfortunately my antiquated notions of human equality and basic decency don’t fit in today’s rigid hierarchy of who is deemed worthy of life, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.

    Maybe it’s just that I’m in a dazed state, having just got out of a screaming match with someone, but I’m not seeing what is so wrong in the article, aside from the author being one of Those People. At least, I don’t see what’s wrong on the surface – he’s making a point that the biological determinists and the psychosocial determinists are both wrong. I can see how it’s disturbing because the long history of psychiatric abuse, by governments, private agents, or malicious individuals within and outside of the system, is whitewashed away; completely ignoring how the law and system are designed to be instruments of control and are far too easy to manipulate, while those who are most vulnerable are the most likely to suffer and least able to represent themselves or their own interests in the system.

    I don’t believe long-term psychoactive drug use should EVER be recommended, unless there is a clear physiological purpose. People do not need these drugs like insulin, and it’s cruel to force people into taking them over the long term.

    #76024
    The_cat
    Participant

    I always tell people that the anti psychiatry movement is about informed consent and human rights.

    Do not associate us with the “war on drugs” or just the “drugs are bad” crowd. We are not “anti medication”.

    Want to take some drugs to get rid of some feelings you don’t like ?? Go right ahead but psychiatry must provide full informed consent regarding the medical legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis, the risks of psychiatric treatments, the right to all available medical alternatives, and the right to refuse any treatment considered harmful and respect human rights at all times.

    #76050
    Nomadic
    Participant

    I go along with informed consent and human rights, but there also need to be protections for juveniles, as such lack is the big hole in all this. You have parental abuses and Munchausen’s, and then doctors who market themselves as fixers of kids. These are not secondary, they are gist of a whole wing of our medical system, and capitalism depends upon the middle-class family, an institution designed to exploit children.

    I don’t worry about psych med issues myself as I already completely reject such under any and all conditions. Zero moral issue, just like electro-shock and lobotomy, its just ongoing crime.

    I say we need an anti-psychotherapy anti-recovery movement. This does not mean outlawing free speech, it simply means consciousness raising and intervening in abuse situations. The worst abuses will be of children. And then cutting off government support of psychothearapy and recovery.

    Stop Abusing the Victims!

    Instead the survivors should rise up, demand Citizenship Pay, as well as education and job opportunities, and as well as organizing into collectives and communes, and as well as making regular strike backs against the middle-class family / capitalism.

    Nomadic

    The Lonely Shepherd
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_nKFBVT-_g

    #76170
    Frank Blankenship
    Participant

    I am not a mental patient. I am not “in treatment”. I am not even “in recovery”. I take no psychiatric drugs. I’d call that pretty anti-psychiatry.

    Opposite scenario: Hi. I’m Bipolar. I experience “mood swings”. I need “special” attention. It was misdiagnosed many times before they figured out what I actually had, and now this diagnosis fits me like a glove. I’m “on meds”. I will be for the rest of my life. Bipolar disorder is genetic and there is no curing it. Were I to go off my “meds”, I’d end up in the hospital. If you’re bipolar, too, maybe we should start a club. At least I’m not schizophrenic. I see a shrink every so often. It works for the both of us.

    #76196
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Frank, not sure if I understand you, everyone experiences mood swings, and everyone could do well sometimes with some special attention.

    Are you saying that there are two poles of his bipolar anti-psychiatry movement?

    I think the issues is, do you see in psychiatry or psychotherapy anything good? I do not.

    And then, what do you want to do about it?

    Nomadic

    #76257
    Frank Blankenship
    Participant

    I am not seeing a psychiatrist nor a psychotherapist, therefore, I must not see myself as in need of their services. I don’t see myself as in need of their services because 1. I’ve got a handle on whatever problems I might have, and 2. I’m not buying “mental disorder”, nor am I buying its treatments (neither drug therapy nor talk therapy).

    I was merely, as a form of satire or parody, contrasting my own state with that of the person who is buying “mental disorder” and its treatment. I’d say, in a sense, if “mental ill health” is seeing a doctor and receiving treatment, “mental good health” is repulsion at, and from, the “mental health” treatment business, more aptly referred to as the “mental illness” industry.

    You can put the word “mental” into the search box of the Google search engine for news any day of the week, and come up with numerous stories illustrative of the buyer of “mental health services” and the propaganda that goes along with it. They are all very similar, in most cases, and they don’t reflect my view of the subject one iota. I am very happy not to be a poster child for “ill mental health”.

    #76284
    Nomadic
    Participant

    I’ve got a handle on whatever problems I might have

    The idea that any of use have problems is what keeps people from organizing and fighting back. How can you organize when the problems are in your own head. This is what psychotherapy does to people, turns living into a self-improvement project, and so it makes us impotent.

    Nomadic

    #76299
    Frank Blankenship
    Participant

    As I was saying before, if you want to fight psychiatry or psychotherapy, beyond getting rid of forced treatment (a captive population for your hospital-prison/community is NOT a FREE population) (also, it’s kind of absurd to speak of anybody involuntarily in treatment as a “consumer”, even if, on top of their freedom, you rob them of their money, too), you attack them where it hurts, in their wallets and pocketbooks. People pay for it. They pay doctors for it. Did nobody buy it, the profession would be kaput.

    First off, and this is the problem with all the rhetoric, I don’t think the way to get rid of psycho anything is to turn everybody into slaves. There is a difference between consensual non-coercion and non-consensual coercion that has to be acknowledged. Some people get into this business of their own volition, some people don’t. Forced non-treatment doesn’t work for me conceptually any more than forced treatment does. When it’s a matter of choice, it helps to have one.

    #76327
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Frank, I think you have bought into Libertarianism, and this is probably why we are having a hard time communicating. Libertarianism is predicated on this idea of a pre-existent and pre-formed self, as opposed to a personhood which exists in social relations.

    None of us are autonomous, nor have we ever been autonomous. If you go with Libertarianism then there will always be an excessive concern with the line between consent and coercion, and using this as a comprehensive moral yardstick.

    Excellent book which deals with exactly this issue:
    http://www.amazon.com/Childrens-Rights-Power-Charging-Children/dp/185302659X/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1462283006&sr=1-3-catcorr&keywords=children+in+charge+mary+john#reader_185302659X

    Anytime you go with this idea of pre-existing pre-defined autonomous self, then you are privileging adult males of the dominate racial group, which I suspect that you are one of.

    I’ve never said that psychotherapists should be incarcerated, I’ve just said that the govn’t should not be licensing them or in any way shape or form endorsing or funding them. And then to go beyond that, I want to put some of them out of business simply by getting their clients to tell of what goes on in the sessions. Basically all it will be is letting people talk themselves out, and then at key junctions trying to talk them out of their anger and into accepting child abuse and other injustices. It is protected free speech, but it is also part of a con game.

    I believe that the vast majority of psychotherapy clients would turn against their therapist if they simply got to read a few of these accounts. They would recognize that the therapist is doing the same things to them that they did to these others. The clients would benefit more from this, as they could see what the therapist’s objectives are, and then they could make an informed decision.

    Psychotherapy never really does operate on informed consent, because the premises and the intents of the therapist are concealed behind deceptions.

    Nomadic

    Billie Holiday – Blues, Love & Romance
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=domy0KMv-KI

    #76359
    Firestarter
    Participant

    A doctor openly lied about me being psychotic. He did this, becauen I refused to take mood stabilizers. However, I’m not about to say, over use of power. Doctors should have to present better evidence of psychosis. I don’t agree with any of their assessments. While just the idea, of what little boundaries they have when it comes to this. Keep in mind, when I talk about my case, it’s important to remember he told me he didn’t believe I was psychotic, so while I considered the term invalid, it just speaks to the level of power they have, and know they have. I’m offended, when people suggesest laws of stricter forced treatment.

    You have to be smart if you want to prevent yourself from becoming the victim of forced treatment. Do not refuse treatment (because otherwise this is used as an agrument to use force).
    When you talk to a psychiatrist take notes and ask critical questions. Be patient and read about the effects of “medicine”.
    After several months tell the psychiatrst that you think the treatment is not helping and you’ve read information about the terrible (side) effects of the drugs.
    If the psychiatrist doesn’t agree: ask for a test by an independent psychiatrist (second opinion), this has to be done with a real test, where you are objectively measured (when I took a test in 2005 they gave me some 50 multiple choice questions and 10 pictures to describe). Ask for your medical file, when you know what the psychiatrist has written, you know what you are up against.
    If the psychiatrist agrees with you: fine, agree to speak the psychiatrist again in a few months.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by Firestarter.
    #76381
    Frank Blankenship
    Participant

    None of us are autonomous, nor have we ever been autonomous. If you go with Libertarianism then there will always be an excessive concern with the line between consent and coercion, and using this as a comprehensive moral yardstick.

    All of us are autonomous. There is a valid distinction to be made between slaves and free people, however if it’s slavery you want, for yourself, well, I’m sure there must be takers somewhere.

    Psychotherapy never really does operate on informed consent, because the premises and the intents of the therapist are concealed behind deceptions.

    There are fools that consent to be fooled, yes. Wisdom demands a little more discretion.

    The discussion had something to do with not writing off anti-psychiatry. Anti-psychotherapy is a somewhat new twist to this evolving theme, but I don’t really think you can call it identical, and yet it is related. Anti-psychotherapy (anti-psychoanalysis) is, to a certain extent, contained within the term anti-psychiatry in that psychoanalysts were traditionally trained in psychiatry. Psychiatry claims to be a branch of medical science. This is where the biological emphasis comes from, and psychoanalysis piggybacks from this same status, and on the same claim.

    I just don’t see the same danger in consensual non-coercive treatments that you apparently do. On the other hand, I see a great deal of harm coming from non-consensual coercive relations of any sort. I wouldn’t mind seeing the entire “mental illness” industry “wither away”, but I think you have to start with the worst aspects of it, and those aspects mainly involve deprivation of liberty and physical harm.

    #76385
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Frank wrote:

    All of us are autonomous.

    Sorry Frank, I don’t agree and I don’t consider your position credible. What you are speaking is one of the main illusions which keeps people subjugated. In fact, it is why we need what D and G call schizo lines of flight.

    I would say that psychotherapy is so deceptive and pernicious, that you can’t be passive. Either you are against it, or you are a collaborator. Hence an effective anti-psychiatry movement has to also be anti-psychotherapy. And this is where I see there as being a problem with MindFreedom. You notice I don’t post about anti-psychiatry and medication issues, because for me there is nothing there worth talking about, as it has to be eradicated.

    If you think the anti-psychiatry movement is in question, tell us why you think this.

    For me, the problem obviously is that its adherents still support psychotherapy, and this premise of the problem in one’s head which must be cured by either talk or pillow punching, is what legitimates psychiatry.

    I know that some people will have good experiences with their psychotherapists, but this is the exception, and the therapist is going outside the role of strict psychotherapy. These goods that people get from their therapists can be gotten other places. And what Jeffrey Mason says is that the things people go to psychotherapy for are things which should be handled in some other arena.

    As I see it those other arenas should be philosophical counseling and instruction, political activism and the legal system.

    Peter Breggin says that underneath all these psychiatric issues is always conflict between real people. And from this I take that you don’t want to disclose information to anyone who is not committed to helping you win.

    So if Peter Breggin is your psychotherapist, then you will probably fair reasonably well. But what Breggin is doing is not necessarily psychotherapy.

    Ronnie Laing went off the deep end because he did not want to attack the middle-class family. Just like Alice Miller, he opened a door, but did not want to walk through it. So neither Laing nor Miller are going to help you beyond a point.

    If the problem is with the family, or with your family, then you need a lawyer or political activists. If it is more a matter of discrimination as a class or group, then you need political activists. Or if it pertains to just personal difference, getting labeled as developmental disorder, then again, lawyers and political activists.

    I was talking with Cat about his anti-tax positions. I told him to volunteer for the Parks Commission, Cultural Commission, or Library Board, or get involved like I am in sidewalk politics. Don’t try and deal with problems on your therapist’s couch, deal with real people, and go after real people. I am trying to remove a number of people from office, but I cannot do this unless I can convince large numbers of voters. So I’ve had to learn how to talk about local issues, and this has changed me.

    The job of the psychotherapist is to convince you that your problem exists only in your own head, or that it is insignificant. Either way, it makes you the one who is wrong.

    So sure, the people putting kids on drugs deserve summary execution. But we also must make it clear that we are also opposed to all psychotherapy. We should also offer other types of paths to problem solution, instead of psychotherapy.

    Above Firestarter talks about how to evade involuntary psychiatric treatment, without direct refusal, as that could be used against you. Well, yes, that is a very negative situation.

    Consider another way to deal with it, by following the example set by Satanic Temple. So everyone can carry a card which states are religious opposition to psychotherapy, psychiatry, and a whole bunch of other similar things. The card is very strongly worded, zero pity seeking. It promises a lawsuit if it is not respected. It demands the party’s attorney be present before they talk at all. And of course the attorney will just tell them to say nothing. And then it asks them to call a number, which leads to ME.

    I’ll get the parties name. If they refuse, I’ll promise that we will get their name and picture and post them on our web site, and tell them that abusing people undercover of authority is such an extreme threat that it will not be tolerated. And I’ll start filling out the complaint to start a civil suit right there with them on the phone.

    The same goes for corporal punishment in schools, which is how Satanic Temple uses it. And they use it when the parents have signed a consent form. So it could just as easily be used against the parents too. And whether the religious objection is actually legally binding or not, does not matter.

    Nomadic
    http://freedomtoexpress.freeforums.org/

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 45 total)
  • The forum ‘Rethinking Psychiatry’ is closed to new topics and replies.