So, I’ve talked about what antipsychiatry is and the history of antipsychiatry a little, and in this third and final part in the series I look at why people are antipsychiatry.
Now, I understand that this is a theory and will only be true for a percentage of people. And I understand that no matter what I say, I will have a deluge of people disagreeing with me.
Nevertheless, I write:
Antipsychiatrists are Scared
Antipsychiatrists are scared of psychiatry, scared of what psychiatry does and scared of mental illness in general. I understand. These are scary things. I’m pretty sure I’m scared of all of them too but rationally, I live with them all.
Psychiatry is Powerful and Scary
There is no arguing that psychiatry is powerful. Doctors of all types are powerful but some might argue that psychiatrists are even more so as they have the right/duty of treating people without consent in very limited circumstances. (And, of course, any doctor can have a person held or treated without consent, not just a psychiatrist, but psychiatrists are likely the ones making the call.)
Moreover, a psychiatrist’s primary function is to treat serious mental illness and they primarily do this with drugs. Very powerful drugs. They’re not as powerful as, say, oncology (cancer) or HIV/AIDS medication, but they are powerful nonetheless.
So when I think of a person who has the power to wield these drugs and lock me up against my will, I can quite reasonably be scared of that person. I have been scared of that person. For many years I was scared that a doctor was going to throw me into a psych ward against my will.
However, no psychiatrist ever has or has even discussed it. And as one person who has had the experience said, “There’s no reason to be afraid of involuntary treatment.”
Our Past Makes us Scared of the Present
I understand fear based on the past. It’s something we all have in a variety of areas of our lives. Our experiences are how we learn. Our past tries to tell us how to avoid pain in the future. It may not do the best job of it, however.
And as the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy. If psychiatry has bitten you, you are likely going to be shy, scared, of it in the future. In my case I had a very bad experience when my vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) was turned on (doctor error) which resulted in immediate agony and terror; and yes, I have been scared of getting it adjusted ever since. Not scared enough not to do it, but certainly scared enough to have a butterfly farm in my stomach when it has to be done.
Mental Illness is Scary
And as is obvious to anyone who has a mental illness – mental illness is scary. It’s terrifying to have a brain that doesn’t work. It’s terrifying to have delusions and hallucinations. It’s terrifying thinking of the pain of depression or bipolar disorder.
Fear and Antipsychiatry – Fear is Easy
So it’s much easier to deny and decry what we fear than it is to face it head-on. It’s easier for me to rile against the evils of VNS than it is for me to simply say that it didn’t work for me, it caused me pain, but other people have had other, more positive experiences.
[push]It’s easier to believe that my experience is the only experience and that everyone should change based on that no matter whether I am the exception to the rule.[/push]
It’s easier to avoid psychiatry than accept the fact that one day one psychiatrist may decide I need involuntary treatment. It’s easier to scream and holler against an evil conspiracy than simply to admit that sometimes Bad Things Happen to Good People and sometimes that person is me.
It’s always easier to act out of fear and anger than it is to stand up and deal with the complex intricacies of life-altering, stressful, painful decisions of treatment.
Hate and Anger Stem From Fear
So when it comes down to people who hate me, I get it. They fear what I represent. This comes out as anger and hate. No problem. It’s pretty natural.
But I don’t let fear rule my world. I don’t let the fear of becoming the exception stop me from trying to become the rule. And the rule is most people get better with treatment. The exceptions are bad. The exceptions are worth noting. The exceptions are worth keeping in mind. But it’s the rule on which I base my thoughts. It’s rationale and it’s hope on which I base my thoughts. And that’s just the kind of person I want to be.
Below is the bib from my capstone thesis. You will notice, a number of peer reviewed articles from different disciplines. My favorites are Baughman Breggin, Stolzer and Francis. Breggin and Francis are lead members of the APA, and Francis, lead editor of the DSM IV said the defining mental illness is BS in Wired Magazine.Hate and fear are feelings. Facts don’t car about your feelings, and the fact is psychiatry is completely subjective. Anti—psychiatry is prudent rather than merely being fearful, because what another may think can never be objectively validated. In short, antipsychiatry presents sound and valid arguments to support its claims rather than arguing from an appeal to emotion as this blog presents.
Baughman, F. J. (2008). Psychiatry’s Chemical Imbalance’ Fraud: Who Killed Rebecca Riley?. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry: An International Journal of Critical Inquiry, 10(2), 96-108. doi:10.1891/1559-4343.10.2.96
Bell, A. S. (2011). A Critical Review of ADHD Diagnostic Criteria: What to Address in the DSM-V. Journal of Attention Disorders, 15(1), 3-10. doi:10.1177/1087054710365982
Bratter, T. E. (2007). The Myth of ADHD and the Scandal of Ritalin: Helping John Dewey Students Succeed in Medicine-Free College Preparatory and Therapeutic High School. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 27(1), 4-13.
Breggin, P. R. (2014). The Rights of Children and Parents in Regard to Children Receiving Psychiatric Diagnoses and Drugs. Children & Society, 28(3), 231-241. doi:10.1111/chso.12049
Cosgrove, L. (2011). The DSM, Big Pharma, and Clinical Practice Guidelines: Protecting Patient Autonomy and Informed Consent. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 4(1), 11-25
Dryer, R., Kiernan, M. J., & Tyson, G. A. (2006). Implicit Theories of the Characteristics and Causes of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Held by Parents and Professionals in the Psychological, Educational, Medical and Allied Health Fields. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58(2), 79-92. doi:10.1080/00049530600730443
Frances, A. (2015). Don’t Throw out the Baby with the Bath Water. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(6), 577. doi:10.1177/0004867415579467
Furman, L. M. (2008). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Does New Research Support Old Concepts?. Journal of Child Neurology, 23(7), 775-784. doi:10.1177/0883073808318059
Galves, A. (2010). Review of the Conscience of Psychiatry: The Reform Work of Peter R. Breggin, MD. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry: An International Journal of Critical Inquiry, 12(2), 179-181.
Jaret, O. & Waite-Stupiansky, S. (2009). Recess–It’s Indispensable!. YC: Young Children, 64(5), 66-69.
Mather, B. A. (2012). The Social Construction and Reframing of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Ethical Human Psychology & Psychiatry, 14(1), 15-26. doi:10.1891/1559- 4343.14.1.15
Mises, R., Quemada, N., Botbol, M., sBurzsteijn, C., Garrabe, J., Golse, B., & … Thevenot, J. (2002). French Classification for Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders. Psychopathology, 35(2/3), 176-180. doi:10.1159/000065141
Pericak, A. (2015). Diagnosing Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Using the DSM-5 Criteria. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 11(2), 274-275. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2014.10.001
Pitman, M. M. (2014). Mental Disorders, Brain Disorders, Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Challenges for the Philosophy of Psychopathology after DSM-5. South African Journal of Philosophy, 33(2), 131-144. doi:10.1080/02580136.2014.912472
Purpura, D. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2009). Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale for Preschool Children: A Revised, Brief, Age-Specific Measure. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38(2), 263-272.
Ridgway, A., Northup, J., Pellegrin, A., LaRue, R., & Hightsoe, A. (2003). Effects of Recess on the Classroom Behavior of Children With and Without Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 253-268. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.3.253.22578
Singh, I. (2008). Beyond Polemics: Science and Ethics of ADHD. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 957-964. doi:10.1038/nrn2514
Slater, S. J., Nicholson L., Chriqui J., Turner L., & Chaloupka F. (2012). The Impact of State Laws and District Policies on Physical Education and Recess Practices in a Nationally Representative Sample of US Public Elementary Schools. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 166(4), 311-316. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.1133.
Soling, C., Carr, J., & Fidrick, D. (Producers), & Soling, C. (Director). (2009). The War on Kids [Video File]. USA: Films Media Group.
Stolzer, J. M. (2009). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Valid Medical Condition or Culturally Constructed Myth?. Ethical Human Psychology & Psychiatry, 11(1), 5-15. doi:10.1891/1559-4343.11.1.5
I am not familiar with all of the sources you cited, but I am familiar with a couple of them. I am also familiar with the fact that at least some of those sources you cited have spawned critiques by other professionals in the field who have considerably different professional viewpoints, many of which are also listed in peer-reviewed publications. I also know that while antipsychiatry proponents tend to be a lot more vocal than the great majority of practicing professionals in the field (who are otherwise too busy helping people to take enough time out to rebut all of the criticisms from antipsychiatry proponents) they (the antipsychiatry proponents) are also a distinct minority.
I will knowledge that antipsychiatry does serve some useful purpose by pointing out perceived wrongs in the field in much the same way that antiwar protesters helped spur a wider public antiwar sentiment that, despite all the harm it also did, brought attention to issues that needed to be addressed regarding the war in Vietnam. Despite the fact that some of these protesters demeaned, denigrated and spat on returning soldiers, they also exerted influence over politicians through public demonstrations to bring our troops home from a conflict that was costing more than it was worth. The point here is that some small good may be coming out of the overall bad thing that antipsychiatry really is.
Much of the complaints that come from the antipsychiatry camp reference problems that existed to one degree or another much more in the past than in the present. So while you say that antipsychiatry is prudent, I say to some small degree that may be correct, but to a much larger degree antipsychiatry is based far more on bias and prejudice and fear mongering than on actual accuracy and fact.
I beleive you have that backwards. It is a wel–known fact that pshcyaitry is bought. Loren Mosher spoke of an unholy alliancee. Morover, one must puase when Francis, the lead editor or the DSM IV, calls his own work BS and says, ADHD has been secussely “dieseased mongerd” to society. For over 5 decades the APA has psuhed a theory (biochemical) that still has no objective proof of existence, to which, the Directory of the NIMH, Tom Insel, conceded. The fact that the diagnostic criteria changes points to bias, all the while, antipschyatry has remained consistent and the mongeriing and bias comes from the APA.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and we could argue all day and get nowhere: I stand by what I said. Any time an opinion paints with a wide, biased brush, it is inherently flawed. For example, psychiatry is not “bought” any more the medical doctors are “bought” (unless you believe MDs are “bought” as well). Your implication is that “[all of] psychiatry is bought” and that is simply not true. That’s like saying “all cops are on the take.”
Wikipedia states it rather well: “Psychiatry is a branch of medicine devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study and treatment of mental disorders. These include various abnormalities that are affective, behavioral, cognitive and perceptual.”
And, interestingly, there is an article that speaks to a biophysical model of mental illness here: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/roots.aspx
Indeed, not all of pshcyaitry is bought. Francis and Breggin prove tha much. However, peer reviwed literature places that number at 70 to 80%. If you take the time to read Baughmans work or the several others listed, you will see that several discplines do not beleive psychiatry is a legitmate branch of medicine. Most, if not all, colleges do not count Wilkipedia as a creditable source, but rather, primiary sources or peer-reviwed literature as the gold standard off academic creitbilty. “As you should see they could do such studies on table legs and come up with correlations. This is essentially what they . Think of it supposedly ethical geneticists and medical statisticians lend themselves to this fraud—authorship and publishing in their journals–knowing from the outset—in instances of psychiatric genetics that there are no somatic/brain or body abnormalities/abnormal phenotypes…just thin air and illusions they create: “If there are genes, there must be a disease.” Fred Baugman. “Genetic database?? Absurd! We are still diagnosing ADHD based on a checklist of behaviors that have changed over time! There is simply put– no disease- only a cluster of behaviors that have been documented across every mammalian species, across every culture, and across historical time.” Jean Stolzer .Perhaps not so ironically, you proffer an example of the fox in the henhouse. Regardless, as with any human, you are entitled to your opinion as well, Nonetheless, the fact, remains, “t’s too soon to say whether we’ll someday have a blood test for schizophrenia or a brain scanning technique that identifies depression without any doubt”. Same song psychatiry offered for 50years with the biochemical theory– still no objective proof, and those far more training than us combined , beleive pshyciaty’s attempt to proffer biological cause is nothing more than the psuedo sceince perpuated from the onset.
At least it’s a good thing that you attempt to back up what you post with references to source material. However all of those names you listed are associated in one way or another, to one degree or another, with the antipsychiatry movement – whether being people who are dedicated to antipsychiatry or people who simply make statements that seem to validate some of the things that are stated by antipsychiatry proponents. However one thing is pretty clear about most people on the side of antipsychiatry; rather than researching data and following it through to its supported conclusion, antipsychiatry proponents tend to start with the assertion that psychiatry is bad and evil and bought, etc., etc., etc., and then only cite those specific instances of statements that appear to support their assertions.
To give you the benefit of doubt, I will suggest that it might be possible that some psychiatrists have been bought. However I do not accept the 70 to 80% claim. I would think it was a stretch to say 10% to 15% might be construed as “bought.” Antipsychiatry propagandists tend to exercise only selective attention and to grossly exaggerate the negatives they discover (or invent) about psychiatry and even the mental health field in general.
Regarding statements made in peer reviewed literature, I’ve played this game with several other people before, and frankly I find it tiring. The game I’m referring to is: “My cites are better than yours.” I say that because for every quote that says something negative about psychiatry, each of those can generally be countered with one or more equally peer-reviewed statements/sources from appropriately credentialed professionals stating the opposite.
As is true with so many other things in an argument between whether something is good or bad, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. In this case, regarding psychiatry versus antipsychiatry, my own education, knowledge, experience, and judgment strongly suggest to me that the truth lies far closer to psychiatry being considerably more legitimate than antipsychiatry proponents would accept. Psychiatry is still a comparatively embryonic field in that it is still in the process of evolving, just as the field of medicine has evolved from what was even a century ago to what is today.
That is to say, while psychiatry (like so many other major fields) is certainly not perfect and definitely has its faults and has much room to improve and evolve (like medicine), it is currently the best system for providing help and relief to people suffering from mental illness psychological disorders. I have yet to see antipsychiatry offer anything that is demonstrably, consistently, sustainable (i.e., better) than what is available through the current mental health system.
And with respect to the label of “pseudoscience” I am convinced that label applies far more to antipsychiatry than it does to psychiatry.
Francis and Breggin are psychiatrists! Top members at that! However, I would say they are a far cry from leading the movement in comparsion to Thomas Szaz. Then Loren Mosher? Indeeed, there is professional debate within any fieldd, but psyhiatry never seems to run out of members cirtical of thier own field. Red flag #1. That’s not necessailry a bad thing, as it appears Insell is at least conginizant of the crticism, and to some degree, willing to drop a layer of arogance that has long surrounded the field. Any time in stats 101 reveal correlation does not equal causation, and correlations could be drawn to nearly anything with a little imagination. As you probably, know, antipsychhaitry proffers the notion that psychiatry has assigned a pathology to the normal human condition– making patients out of normal. In fact, depression is a very normal response to the death of a loved one and losing attention to a prolonged divorce is normal as well. I have looked at the the other side of the fence– Barkley for instance. Psychiatry qualifies its position with may, might, appear, sugests etc. Never is! —because it never could nor never will. Moreover, antipcyahitry does well to point to countless research methodolges and proved that 70 to 80% number. You have your opinion and I have mine. Regardless, antipsychiatry and a host of other discplnes DOES IN FACT OFFER CONSISTENT PROOF, that psyciatry has “medicalized” the nomal human condition. You might do well to look at these field rather than qualify your position from your personal experince alone.I forget the author’s name, but he did try to find a middle ground in that the opposing forces need to enegage in public debate. Personally, I would like to see more debate to get to the truth that has long eluded society. Is there mental ilness? Of course. Is it on the scale we see in the DSM– of course not. Funny– it changes peridically and varies from region to region – USA and Europe most noticebly. Unitl that day, I am convinced psychaitry is the field wrought with psuedo science that the anti group rountinely exposes.
Regarding antipsychiatry, let’s take a peek at the elephant in the room: what does antipsychiatry have to offer that is demonstrably, consistently, and measurably, and sustainably better than what is available through our current mental health system? What can they offer that is distinctly more efficacious?
Antipsychiatry complains about psychiatry labeling patients and thus causing iatrogenic harm. Such a claim, interestingly, presumes psychiatry creates mental illness that antipsychiatry denies the existence of. If you were called a name, would it cripple YOU? Or would you, like “normal” people, simply label it “name-calling” and give it no further attention? Just think good thoughts?
Antipsychiatry (whose acknowledged “leaders” include Thomas Szasz (co-founder of Scientology’s Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights) and Peter Breggin (generally no longer accepted by the mental health community as being “a member in good standing”).
The greatest majority of antipsychiatry proponents are prolific at complaining about the mental health field and being loudly vocal about perceived wrongs … but when asked what they can offer that is better, most start hemming and hawing, sputtering, or just shut right up.
Antipsychiatry denies the existence of mental disorders. At best, some may grudgingly admit that some people certainly have … something … distinctly unusual in their behavior. Many think mental disorders are actually just signs of eccentric people. It certainly seems they haven’t given much thought to what to do to help people who are … having trouble fitting in (i.e., whom psychiatrists would label “schizophrenic or “delusional” or “psychotic,” for example). If someone isn’t sick, then why treat them?
One complaint of antipsychiatry proponents that I personally think has at least a little more legitimacy regards their complaints about psychiatric drugs. Here are a couple things I agree with:
1. I think medications are overprescribed.
2. To an extent, I also believe that medications are prescribed to people who are, for example, simply experiencing normal reaction or anxiety as a normal response to distressing events in their life rather than because they actually suffer from clinical depression and anxiety as actual disorders.
3. I do believe that pharmaceutical corporations are driven by profit, often at the expense of public safety.
4. I think that pharmaceutical corporations should not be allowed to advertise medications directly to the public.
However, I do believe (and this is supported by number of studies) that, for people experiencing severe degrees of mental illness, medications are definitely helpful. Antipsychiatry proponents like to exaggerate the negative side effects of medications beyond the point of being accurate a realistic. So
I shudder to think what would happen if psychiatry suddenly disappeared and the antipsychiatry crowd took over. I see the Dark Ages happening all over again, with regard to those who suffer from psychological abnormalities which might be a term that they would use to replace mental illness or psychological disorders. What would they do with mentally ill people? Hide them so they won’t embarrass you. Lock them away for perceived misbehavior so you don’t have to deal with them. Tell them to “suck it up” and deal with situations normal people handle but “abnormal” people aren’t equipped for.
So I ask you: What do YOU (as a representative of antipsychiatry) have to offer that is better than what is available from our current mental health field? Instead of condemning what treatments and services are available, tell us what should be done to help those who are disordered (or abnormal or whatever term you would use to replace “mentally ill”)? Espouse L. Ron Hubbard’s “Dianetics”? (L. Ron Hubbard, as you probably know, was a so-so naval officer and a not terribly successful science fiction author.) Yet he, along with his Scientology organization, was considered to be a leader in the antipsychiatry movement.
What do you think should replace psychiatry?
For starters– the anit group does not seek to make life long patients with subjective and ambiouguis criteria nearly anyone could be labled with, nor do they push the biochemical model. If one finds an escapre from an issue, much like an alcholic or drug user, then of course one is apt to favor the field. However, how does one define better? That’s a largely relative prefernce. Finding escape at the cost of one’s physical health-just read the waring lablel thar presents a strong arugment. Then of course, studies abound with neagative ramificcation of long-term psychaitric care. On a behaviorial level, personak growth is stunted, and in turn, one becomes dependent on the very thing likley to harm one’s health– up to and including death. This is fact inedeed. The matter becomes quality vs quanity, to which both can be easily cailled into question with pshcyaitry.
You express critiscism for saying all of psychaitry is on the take, to which I coreected. I think you should do the same because not every source I listed is part of the movement. I challange the assertion that Breggin has lost creditbilty. First, he testifed to Congreess in 2010. Seciond, university librarys carry a large amount of his peer-reviewed literature. Moreover, it is only resonable to expect the APA would throw a “hissy fit” when someone exposes rampant unethical behavior within field of practice– Of course people don’t like like it when thay caught- but I give Insell some credit — at least he is not so arrogant to totatlly dismiss that fact. Here is a simple litmus test regarrding the INVALIDTY of psyshitry: The premise to there is a chemical or genetic imbalance to which after 5 decades there is no proof. Insel and the like hope to find some proof– they have been hoping for decades and profferr the notion that treatment is effecctive. It does not make sense to take chemo without the evidence of cancer– same premise with pyshicatry. You don’t have to accpept 70 or 80 are on the take in some way shape or form. Nontheless, peer -reviwed literature documents it. The field is like faith– you can chose to beleive it or not. Althugh you may have found positive experinces with the field– the argument the field make are not sound or valid– Baughman explains why at length- just because his argument comes from the other side of the fence does not make it unsound or invalid. It’s a bit ironic that you would concede that the field has faults and is in its infancy. Those are red flags for anyone who would care to proceed in a prudent manner. Take the issue of transgender bathrooms that recently surfaced in NC. Recently the The American College of Pediatricians said, ” “Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse” To say teaching children that the lifestye normal is delusional, and the anti group has rountinely fought against in engaging in mass delusion that psychiatry (with the help of big pharma) perputaates. As an example — look at ADHD and look at the connections to money . Stolzer — from a sociological view, noted that ADHD is nearly non-existient in private schools. Now look at tesitmony from Patti Johnson — an educator in relation to IDEA.. The war on kids, produced by Soling, takes a view of ADHD from many professions and arrives at conclusion that sociiety has elected to engage in mass delusion. Perhaps, some day, psychaitry might have a breakthorugh that would end the war, so to speak. However, it has a long way to go.. Morover, society needs this debate to get there or chose another healthy course of action– I forget the guys name– (peer-reveiwed), but he states that the problem– the field won’t debate the issues and that is why we see descent from within the field. We are going back and forth on a blog– when in all fairness– these to camps realy need to “duke it out” in public.
I’ve read that before from the antipsychiatry crowd:
Psychiatry wants to create life-long patients using subjective and ambiguous criteria.
And I don’t believe it. While some mental illnesses will, indeed be life-long, it’s not because psychiatrists want them to be. That really doesn’t make any sense. If a disorder is life-long, it is because that’s just the nature of the beast. Psychiatrists are people, and they are doctors. Why would anyone (especially doctors) want others to remain mentally ill for their entire lives?
That claim is usually followed by another claim: “Psychiatrists want to keep people sick so they can keep getting paid.” – I don’t believe that, either. Psychiatrists have plenty of clients without having to create “return business” … they will “get paid” simply because there are more people who need psychiatric help than there are psychiatrists to handle the need. The demand outweighs the supply.
“Subjective and ambiguous criteria?” The human mind is incredibly complex, and far less is known about it and the nature and phenomena of thoughts, feelings, emotions, intentions, etc. Of course there is a necessary amount of subjectivity. Psychological disorders do not manifest physically like a broken bone or diabetes. Diagnoses are made based on what the patient reports and by observation of patient behavioral characteristics common to each category of disorder. So while there is a distinct element of subjectivity, it is certainly not as “loose” or arbitrary as antipsychiatry proponents would have us believe.
This is also not to say there is no biochemical or physiological marker, since there may well be (and recent studies with fMRI and other testing has shown physiological differences between “normal” and “disordered” patients brains and electroneurochemical activity) such markers or causative factors. A lack of physiological – or biochemical – differences does not mean that a mental illness isn’t real.
And as for the term “better” as in ‘What does antipsychiatry have to offer that is better’ – I think it would be rather obvious: symptom relief, improvement in normal function, feeling better, etc. For example, when you have a cold or flu, it’s not hard to know what “better” means. I have never seen an antipsychiatry proponent give a good answer to that question. It’s far easier to fix the blame than it is to fix the problem.
“Then of course, studies abound with negative ramification of long-term psychiatric care”
As do studies abound with negative ramification of lack of psychiatric care. In some cases, a mental illness will indeed resolve on its own, whether treated or not (but how prevalent is that, really?). In other cases, mental illness will continue, or will be recurrent over one’s lifetime. With treatment, recent studies also show that symptoms can be reduced and managed. So the question becomes, “which studies do we believe?” Even the top experts reach differing conclusions from legitimate studies.
There is an interesting critique of Breggin, here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html
And noted again, here:
“What they won’t learn, however, from either his post or his HuffPo biography, is that Breggin is a hugely controversial figure in his field. While his books have blurbed him as “the Ralph Nader of psychiatry,” and he certainly has many fans who believe that he raises important questions, not everyone finds Breggin’s credentials—or arguments—convincing.“
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-bradley/some-background-on-peter-_b_4333.html
And another interesting discussion about Breggin, here (about halfway down the page):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/interviews/jensen.html
Again, for every kudo for a celebrity expert, there is an anti-kudo from equally credentialed expert(s). So the question, again, becomes, “Who do you want to believe?”
I remind you, I am not saying that antipsychiatry is 100% wrong – only that one must consider the source when deciding how much weight to give to arguments, and antipsychiatry doesn’t have all that much “weight.”
Regarding your statement, “The invalidity of psychiatry” regarding the “chemical imbalance” statement … the term “chemical imbalance” was an explanatory construct intended to give a better sense of understanding to laypeople. As such, it has become a sort of “shorthand” to be used as a commonly recognizable term and metaphorical concept. Professionals are aware there is a lot more involved in what actually happens in “psychoneurochemical” interactions. On a very basic level, it’s like telling a child he has an “owie” or he “is sick” rather than try to explain he is experiencing (for example) viral gastroenteritis or a complication from a bacterial infection of the upper respiratory tract.
How that “invalidates psychiatry” is a mystery to me …
Antipsychiatry proponents use arguments against psychiatry that have far more to do with syntactical games than actual, factual data. In this way, many of the antipsychiatry arguments are misleading, disingenuous, exaggerated and deceitful.
As mentioned before by this blog’s author, one does not have the time (or the inclination) to engage every antipsychiatry proponent’s arguments, and I’ve addressed much of them in my responses here. At this point, I consider antipsychiatry to be more like a sub/counter-culture demi-cult (or, at best, a lot of people with Scientology-LIKE attitudes with a grudge against psychiatry – with some legitimate reasons and a lot of bias).
Should antipsychiatry and psychiatry “duke it out in public?” That would be like asking the medical field to justify their existence to a group of people whose medical treatments were somehow sub-standard because of a few “bad apples” in the field.
Dr. Amen falls on quackqatch too. However, I dont see him tesifying to Congresss. How convient of psychiatry to say the brain is complex– they say that to hide behind the ambuguity they create. Insel thiinks he found something– but we have been down that road before. Not once has psychiatry showed causation– stats 101 correlation does not equal causation– and given the high degree of subjectivty and ambuiguity those correlations “seem” appear” or “might sugggest” anything the filed wants it to… After all, they vote disorders into existence. Factual data– more like frabicated from psychaitry. this debate is akin to relegion: you can choose to have faith. Some beleive faith heals, and others do not. Funny– there is one major relegion (if you care to dig into the etomolgy) that beleives Revelation 18:23– Hardly a subculture! If psychaitry had nothing to fear- then it should be willing to clear its name. you can’t say it’s not an issue because Insel has put it out there.– they know. Honeslty though, I stopped when the author of pshcyachitry’s own bible called it BS.. Why is it so hard ot accpet that when the author off his own work calls it BS others find it prblemaic accepting it?
Hi John, are you aware that teenagers who suffer from Schizophrenia lose 5-10% of their brain’s grey matter over 5-7 years. Usually the teenage brain prunes off 1% of grey matter per year until adulthood, but Dr. Paul Thompson, a Neurologist at UCLA has used 3D scanners to show the rate of grey matter loss in teenagers with Schizophrenia. In 2016 current research at The Brain and Behaviour foundation, a Dr Howes has proven that there are extremely elevated levels of Microlgia (immune cells found in the brain) in Schizophrenia sufferers brains, and his research indicates that the immune cells attack the grey matter, thus causing the severe brain tissue loss. More research is needed to determine why the immune cells attack the brain tissue in sufferers. Google it!
John, whilst I detest the torture that Psychiatry has inflicted on people who suffer from mental illness in the past, I believe that many mental illnesses, like Schizophrenia, should been seen to by Neurologists and not Psychiatrists. I’m aware that Psychiatrists prescribe drugs to control behavioural symptoms in sufferers, but this does nothing to repair the grey matter brain tissue damage which is also seen in 3D brain scans of people who suffer from Clinical Depression, PTSD and Bipolar disorder.
Do you understand what I mean? Cheers, Amanda
“The one misstatement in the Times report: ” In a range of studies, researchers have found that people with schizophrenia suffer a progressive loss of their brain cells: a 20-year-old who develops the disorder, for example, might lose 5 percent to 10 percent of overall brain volume over the next decade, studies suggest.²
This statement is not supported by a scientifically valid study in which the brain scans of drug naïve patients would be compared with the brain scans of patients who have been taking psychotropic drugs. When you expose a normal brain to antidepressants and / or antipsychotics those drugs have demonstrable effects on the size, chemistry, and functioning of the brain. There is ample evidence that drugs cause the brain to malfunction – there is NO EVIDENCE that mental illness causes permanent brain alterations.” http://ahrp.org/psychiatrys-claims-re-brain-imaging-have-far-outpaced-science-nyt/ Things like this are the main reasons I hate stats- correlation does not equal causation. You will find many in the anti group blame the drug for what appears in testing– and in some cases willful by desing. I dont oppose more research. However, I fear those researchers are proffering a false cause, which places society back at square 1 or embracing a false cause/hope.
Hi John, here is a research link for you. You read alot about antipsychiatry and Gosh I’ve heard all their arguments before. You cite lots of referrences, but you make no referrence to the current scientific research into Psychiatric illness. Most Psychiatric illnesses have a neurological basis. There has been a massive amount of evidence gained through researching brain structure and function to prove this. If you would like to read about what neuroscience researchers have discovered about Psychiatric illness, please click on this link: https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=qCVy9hgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra
This will take you to the World Health Organization (WHO) website of scholarly citations of research by a World leading Neurologist called Dr. Paul Thompson. Cheers, Amanda
You say the people against psychiatry are scared? What about the pseudo scientists that call themselves psychiatrists. They know absolutely nothing but peddle lies and propaganda.
This site is dangerous. You are an enemy of freedom and humanity. One day you will get what’s coming to you [moderated]
I have encountered a number of antipsychiatry proponents over the years and it is true that the majority of these people are former psych patients (some are even current psych patients). And I believe that these people are indeed scared. Why? Because they are probably afraid that they will, again, be placed on a psych hold if and when they experience another psychotic break. Or, being antipsychiatry proponents, they are afraid that their uninformed messages will be diluted by truth.
What often seems to be the case is that a person who is schizophrenic or is suffering delusions experiences a psychotic break. During this break their behavior is such that the people around them feel endangered. The police are called, these people are picked up and placed on a psych hold, and they end up spending three days or longer and a psych facility getting treatment for their mental illness. As a result they are angry and disgruntled and feel that their right to freedom has been violated. Interestingly, none that I have learned about has shown any concern about the fact that their behavior left others feeling endangered. That is they seem to think that their freedom was more important than other people feeling safe around them.
Another sad but true fact is that the ”church” of Scientology has published a number of dishonest videos, articles, brochures and books that make unsupported claims against psychiatry and against medications. Many of their publications including the video entitled Psychiatry an Industry of Death contain dishonestly edited articles and statements from so-called professionals in the field (most of whom are on the outs with the rest of the field) making claims that – upon closer inspection – are ill supported, taken out of context, or are otherwise inaccurate or just plain untrue.
Scientology and antipsychiatry are actually the ones who engage in pseudoscience, exaggerations, distortions and outright lies.
This site is not dangerous at all. In fact, the only possible danger is that which is perceived by antipsychiatry proponents who fear that the real truth will somehow invalidate their distortions, exaggerations and lies. Thus their message will be exposed as the biased and uneducated, and inaccurate stuff that it is.
So on the contrary, Natasha Tracy is not any kind of enemy at all except perhaps a perceived enemy of antipsychiatry. And if that is the case then consider me an enemy of antipsychiatry as well, although I prefer to consider myself a proponent of truth and accuracy.
Hi Cappy 58, Thank you for everything you have written in this blog. I’ve read it all. You are very wise! Cheers, Amanda
I read a lot of antipsychiatry articles about how harmful medicine is, all their half-truths, straw man arguments, and negative anecdotal evidence, and they propose everyone should come off drugs, and one conclusion I’ve come to about most people in the antipsychiatry movement is that they can’t handle their own fears about life. They talk about the bad sides of medication, but seem to be in complete denial of the fact that there are some people who have to choose the lesser of two evils – deal with horrible side effects, or else love in a hell FAR worse, which they probably won’t live in for long because they’ll kill themselves. Those are the only two options they are given in life.
They NEED to believe in the ideal that EVERYONE can get better through alternative treatments. They NEED to believe that the severely ill don’t have to be the that way. They need to believe that every problem has an ideal solution. Because if they accept the possibility they’re wrong, they’d have to accept the possibility that something really bad could happen to THEM one day, or to their children, and there may not be jack shit they can do about it. They can’t handle that. They need to believe mental illness isn’t real, because they need to believe they are really in charge of their own mind, therefore that it couldn’t happen to them or their children. They hate people who take meds and can’t be helped by alternative treatments because they hate any evidence that suggests the worldview that protects them from their own fear could be wrong. They’ll violently defend their view that everyone has a choice in the matter, no matter how much evidence is presented to them.
To accept that bipolar disorder is a real, neurological disorder would require accepting that people don’t always have 100% controo over their bodies, minds, and emotions. To accept that people don’t always have 100% control would require accepting that maybe they can’t take the credit for their own sanity, that it doesn’t make them better than the people they need to feel superior to, and that it could one day be taken away from them, and if it was, there may or may not be an ideal solution, and they may have to choose between alternatives that all suck ass, and just find the one that sucks the least.
Accepting that psychiatry helps a lot of people would require them being strong enough to face their own fears and humble enough to consider, at least, the possibility that they’re own state of mental health doesn’t make them better than anyone.
Amy, I think you make some very good points, and stated them well.
I think many are scared to face the fact that mental illness really does exist, perhaps because then they would have to admit they aren’t as mentally healthy as they think they are.
Hi Amy, Thank you for what you said in your reply. Thank you for saying that Bipolar is actually a neurological disorder. I heartily agree and there is a massive amount of past and present research that supports this. Grey matter tissue loss occurs in the brains of many different types of mental illness. I understand that Psychiatrists prescribe meds to try and help improve the behaviour , mood and functionality of those who suffer from mental illness, but I believe that illnesses like Bipolar and Schizophrenia should really be seen to by Neurologists to help people try to physically improve their brains, and maybe regrow some their brain tissue. I love what you wrote! Cheers Amanda
@puddycat
It seems to me that you feel the need to make it seem “psychiatrists sodomize their patients” so what solution would you approach to stop the abuse of patients who are raped against their own will? Most “Anti Psychiatry folks” crave the military approach to confront psychiatry is wrong and must be stopped by force, Yet it would regurgitate the old bad stereotype of the “confess or else stance” anti psychiatrists tend to favor towards their “psychiatric oppressors” yet all hat and no cattle when it comes down to progressive treatment that surpasses current psychiatry.
It’s a business model. The disfunctional will keep the disfunctional in business. Simple as that. Please don’t make parents who choose psychiatry as an “easy pass on irresponsibility” as innocent children. They knew what they were getting into, even if they were blind, there were hints that led them to that rabbit hole by choice and refusal to educate themselves properly on the reality of the practice. You don’t do your homework, you fail your test and get serious consequences. I think you should start a blog about helping those in mental health and ex psychiatric patients on bettering laws and rights for lives of those who actually suffered. Encourage conversation, ideas, brainstorm possibilities for better outcomes for those abused in psychiatry in the future to come. Then the Anti Psychiatric groups can look more like the civil rights leaders of the 1960’s, not some natural news conspiracy theorists with a stash of guns and plans to take down psychiatry with military approach.
@VenusH
Honey, I agree with you for the most part. Psychiatry can be a brutal experience to overcome. No support for ex psychiatric patients who don’t fit the “mad pride narrative”. I really hope you have great dreams that will come true angel. You deserve better, and those who suffered greatly yet who want to change their lives for better.
I can only say psychiatry has made my life a living hell. I am blessed I was never institutionalized, yet I was forced on Resperdhal when I was ten years old. As a “misdiagnosed youth” by my parents who got me a PPD diagnoses at two years old (cause I wasn’t speaking at that deadline at two, or they would of neglected a retarded child in their life if that was the case) thought it would be the final solution. Then bam, autism when I was four years old. Having the “Autism” label made me look like was some ugly, fat nerdy kid with a nasally garbled voice. I had a lot of self esteem issues, growing up with verbally and emotionally abusive narrcistic parents with two unsupportive siblings, both were narssistic and vain themselves.
When I was ten, I had some behavioral problems, my parents were selfish and my opinion was invalid cause the mental illness label made me some troglodyte with no valid opinion to take some consideration into, so that led to problems like arguments and fights that seemed to never end. So one day, my mom and I got into a fight when I was ten years old, and she was bitterly nagging why “I just couldn’t behave like a normal little girl?” I messed with her religious mind. And so I sarcastically approached her in hostility “I was seeing demons and the anti Christ”. So then that led my parents taking me to seek three psychiatrists for eleven years with psychotropic meds that did nothing but mess me up without my psychiatrist and my parents having any actual concerns over my own person needs and concerns with the meds I was taking.
I got off my mess cold turkey in September of 2013, and I am so happy I chose that decision I made.
I feel so much better, yet I will say I will hate psychiatry to the day I die. Mental health programs are powered by egotistical parents who choose to be an irresponsible prick to society so that’s why “Mr. Psychiatrist” is still in business. I personally can say I am vain and have some narcissism issues. At large, I am very prejectuce to people who take medication and believe in mental health “BS”. My sister is a drug addict living on the street, and being in mental health culture really made me reconsider the soul purpose of a med head. You see, if people are given meds, you should be willing to know you have to grow up and choose weather to take them or not. Like a crack head, the crack head “needs his crack” like the med head “needs her meds”. A habitual co dependency that develops based on insecurity and certain situations.
Mind you I am not pro psychiatry or “mad pride”. I personally get violated as if it’s some type of belittling mockery in a hostile approach. I honestly will never identify with “Autism” because of the two types of images. The head banging troglodyte that should be sold into the circus and used in the cage with a ringmaster, or in other words, the possessive mother of the child. Or an ugly, fat, pasty nerd with a cumpulsive obsession in nerdy/weird/geeky stuff yet has a violence issue with an ugly, nastily, garbled voice
Sorry. Negative experiences in life, with mental health being an exsasterbater to the situation, will make you extremely prejudice and will make you laugh when the institution goes up in flames, while sipping an ale, cackling with a pessimistic laughter of how life can be so tragic.
Hi,
I’ve been reading your blog for a while and have found a lot of your writing to strike a chord with me; I’ve struggled with personally with depression (unipolar) and various anxiety disorders, and am also a medical student going into Psychiatry and Neurology. However, I just happened upon your section addressing Antipsychiatry and am extremely disappointed that you truly do dismiss individuals’ traumatic experience. You compare psychiatric treatment to cancer, but ignore the fact that cancer patients are not told they are incapable of making their own decisions and are not forced treatment — even if a doctor disagrees with their personal decision. This is even more significant given that untreated late-stage cancer is much more likely to be fatal than a psychiatric disorder. Further, unlike physical diseases (i.e., cancer), treatment for psychiatric disorders has hardly advanced in the past thirty years; Atypical antispychotics have no statistically significant increase in efficacy compared to Haldol, Thorazine, etc., all that has changed is slight decrease in the associated symptoms, which still often inhibit day-to-day functioning by down regulating cognitive function and yield metabolic syndrome, which can occur so suddenly and severely to be life-threatening. Contrary to the field of physical medicine (i.e., oncology), psychiatrists routinely withhold this information, refusing to practice informed consent.
As a medical student going into Psychiatry, I have spent time working with and observing psychiatrists inpatient psychiatric units, and have observed, at times, horrific treatment of payments. While there are some laws regulating the use of restraint, seclusion, and forced medication, they vary greatly between states and often are not followed or enforced — public hospitals/treatment centers are overseen by the state’s Department of Mental Health, and thus are required to have a formal complaint process. However, most hospitals hire their own “Human Rights Officer”, who filters the complaints and decides which ones to send to the state department. Former patients who have pursued legal proceedings in regards to illegal and abusive treatment were routinely failed by the legal system; many could not afford a private attorney, whereas the hospitals have medical liability insurance that allowed them to hire kick-ass attorneys. Further, though, psychiatric disorders are intensely stigmatized, such that the hospital staff and physicians were nearly always believed in their justification of inappropriately forced treatment and denial of allegations, over the psychiatric patient.
While I do not yet have an MD degree, I will in another couple years, and plan to go on to residencies in Psychiatry and Neurology. I aspire to be a different kind of doctor, one who engages with patients in mutual respect and trust and values them as individuals, before a diagnostic label. Yes, there are some psychiatrists like this, who are genuinely good people, continue to learn by reading current research journals, and question the overmedicalization of human experience. While I hope — and it seems from your blog posts — that you have encountered a number of them, please understand that your experience is not representative of others. Additionally, a single doctor may treat their patients very differently form one another — think about how you have privilege, and how others do now: race, family support, socioeconomic class, location, heterosnormative vs LGBTQ. Until you have lived the life of every other person, especially those who consider themselves psychiatric survivors, do not discount or mock their experience and identity.
I have had good and bad psychiatrists. I was afraid of two of my psychiatrists because their treatments threatened my physical health and they didn’t seem to care. I will never understand doctors who don’t take whole health into consideration. Why is it okay to be mentally healthy and otherwise very unhealthy? I don’t understand why some psychiatrists seem to have no concern for physical health. I have a very good psychiatrist who is concerned with my overall health. I hope I am never treated by another psychiatrist who doesn’t treat mental health and physical like they are equally important.
Fear psychiatry? Indeed, we should! Correlation does not prove causation, and we could draw a correlation to almost anything! At most, the Supreme Court accepts psychiatry as an opinion. An opinion with serious ramifications such as the ability to affect 2nd amendment rights, child custody, or, as you mentioned, detention in addition to many more. Considering that 69% of those that authored the DSM are on the take (Stolzer 2009), and Francis calling his own work BS (see Wired Magazine), what reason is there to believe that a “shrink” would have our best interest in mind. Why would one being willing to blindly submit to a mere opinion!
I am reminded of Thr Allegory of the Cave. We could choose to remain comfortable due to our ignorance. However, we could also elect to question the so-called experts. Indeed, questioning leads to the truth. It is the same truth that the so-called experts often hide or flat out deny. I believe you would be naïve to claim otherwise, yet advocating for their defense would serve to create even more “sheep.” There is a fine line between trying to explain a situation and controlling one. Again, why should we blindly hand over control? Because we can’t handle our emotional duress, (i.e. the loss of a loved one.) Humans were not meant to be controlled!
Seriously, have you read the DSM? In fact the requirements for a diagnosis change, which in indicative of the subjective nature it holds. If “they” don’t know, then why should we trust them? Read the so-callled greats such as Barkley’s Taking Charge of ADHD—it appears, we think, may, might, suggest etc. See a pattern here? They don’t know, but somehow they find validation in ambiguity? Does Addderal or Risperdone ring a bell? Personally, I think the field needs an overhaul before anyone places their faith in the field. Granted, all shrinks are not bad, but there is not 1 that can provide cause to some biochemical imbalance they treat! If they did, we would getting blood tests or other OBJECTIVE tests Any psychology 101 textbook will tell you that 1/3rd of mental illness is due to environment? Hmmm 20 or 30 minutes later you got a script? They don’t even look at environment! Now, let that sink in for a bit. Trust is earned, not blindly given, regardless of a degree. However, I fear you proffer the opposite, which may lead down a very dangerous road.
Hi Natasha,
I just want to say I really appreciate the thought, research, and work you have put into your site. I am a person who experiences problems with depression and anxiety disorders, and get all kinds of flack like you do, much of it very similar. A lot of the arguments I hear/read are from antipsychiatry proponents, and they are so repetitive, almost as though they are all using the same script and are just adding their own personal twists to it. Anyway, the BIG question I have for those antipsychiatry proponents is this:
I see you all hammering incessantly on all the things you have a negative perception of with regard to psychiatry and medications – but I have never seen any of you antipsychiatry proponents show any viable alternative to modern psychiatry. A few have pointed to Scientology, but that’s (IMO) vastly worse than anything psychiatry might have wrong with it.
What options do YOU (antipsychiatry people) have to offer that is consistently, demonstrably “better” than what is offered through the current mental health system?
“Why are people antipsychiatry?”
What would be so horrible about admitting that, yes, psychiatrists, psychiatric drugs, and/or other psychiatric treatments such as ECT have caused genuine, irreversible harm to some people; yes, these people are *understandably* afraid, and yes, this is the logical reason they dislike psychiatry?
Why are people anti-antipsychiatry?
Hi Kate you’re pro or anti-psych?
what happens when these so called ‘professionals’ make the wrong diagnosis and you end up suffering from their ‘professional’ opinion. in my time in the system i met ONE psychiatrist that should be allowed to call himself a doctor. instead of reading what his colleagues had written about me, he chose to listen-investigated my claims-and now i’m FREE.
i am able to read lips…but according to ‘medical professionals’ i was reading peoples minds, guess what stuck?
did you know that psychiatrist DO NOT even study ‘PEOPLE’ til their residency.
“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view… Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”
-to kill a mockingbird
Hello Brett!
I’m intrigued by your post. I need some help. What you wrote here, might be answet to my sitiation (or maybe to a lot of people’s situations too)
“what happens when these so called ‘professionals’ make the wrong diagnosis and you end up suffering from their ‘professional’ opinion (…) met ONE psychiatrist that should be allowed to call himself a doctor. instead of reading what his colleagues had written (…)and now i’m FREE. -WHAT do You MEAN by THAT?? Could you elaborate or is there any other way to contact you?
I’ve suffered and still am SUFFERING from what certrain substance did to me, as it was wrongfully prescribed, SINCE THAT I am NOT NORMAL. Horrible thing has hapened since then and me speaking about the torture this doctor and those BRAIN-KILLING drugs did to me, made it worse for me and I had to shut up. That’s why I’m still suffering. I was a normal person, till couple years ago when I took it and I wish I hadn’t do what I did, especially after I know what HORROR it DOES but I was THREATENED to do so and I couldn’t do anything about it as I was so SCARED and then I could’nt do ANYTHING because of those sweet little pills, that started “working”, that DUMB PEOLE still ignorantly ask/say as it is in title here “you’re against psychiatry??? bhahahah”, not even KNOWING what BRAIN DAMAGE it actually DOES. And if some people take and praise them -good for them, but know BOTH SIDES before assuming there is “nothing wrong” with psychiatry, psychiatric drugs, “diagnosis” and “treatements”, etc.
Please answer. Thanks!
Dear Natasha Tracy,
It’s true most people who harbor anti-psychiatry beliefs are former patients. However, I’m aware of some things that don’t fit the theory you put forward very well, if at all.
A search on goggle for Scholarly articles for “psychiatry and pseudoscience” turns up more then 20 pages of relevant results, a number of which are published in psychiatric journals. That is an enormous amount of professional criticism published in journals.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psychiatry+and+pseudoscience&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=faHrUIGjL8KX0QH17oD4Bw&ved=0CC0QgQMwAA
There are a number a Psychiatrist who have publicly spoken out that psychiatry is a pseudoscience and/or rampant with financial conflict of interest or fraud.
A short list of psychiatrist who have spoken out publicly in the USA:
* Loren R. Mosher, M.D. (Former member of the American Psychiatric Association and chief of the Center for Studies of Schizophrenia of the NIMH). Gave in his resignation speech “This level of intellectual/scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to continue to support by my membership”
* Joseph Glenmullen, M.D. (Clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is on the staff of the Harvard University Health Services) Critic that antidepressants were fraud
^Testified at the FDA hearing that resulted in the FDA’s spring 2004 warning about the dangers of antidepressant use (Increased risk of suicide etc)
* Fred Baughman, M.D.
^ Testified before the United States Congress that ADHD and it’s medications were fraudulent science.
There are at least a dozen more psychiatrists, some you may have heard of.
Psychiatry itself has been suffering from a severe decline in recruitment for the last 20 years. Psychiatry in the USA lost 16.8% of medical residents from 1995-2000, and 14% between 2000-2007. “Beyond the ‘head count’ though, the financial stresses experienced by academic departments result in greater barriers to scholarly and educational endeavors, making many departments more closely resemble a private sector ‘group practice’ rather than a true academic environment. These elements conspire to threaten the future of academic psychiatry.”
(This information was published here)
http://ap.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=52351
This is not the worst problem however, there is also an internal crisis of sorts within psychiatry, and that’s new too. Doctors and even psychologists (in two US sates) are increasingly prescribing psychotropic drugs, threatening psychiatry. Mounting patient and career criticism, intrusion of other professions into psychiatry’s traditional field of competence, psychiatry’s low status within medicine and in society in general, coupled with internal problems such as lack of unifying theory between sub-specialties (like ‘neuroscience’ and ‘psychotherapy’) threaten the survival of psychiatry worldwide.
(“Observations on internal and external challenges to the profession” published here)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816922/
In the case that you are not aware, criticism of psychiatry predates the establishment of psychiatry as a profession in 1844. The history of what became the modern ‘anti-psychiatry’ movement is one you may really want to read up on if you have not already. What we have today is a congruent continuation of the criticisms that started over 200 years ago.
(“Critics and dissenters: reflections on “anti-psychiatry” in the United States.”)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2647837
(Full version available for free by some guy that uploaded the paper)
http://www.chronicstrangers.com/history%20documents/Anti-Psychiatry.pdf
In my personal opinion, it’s probably not the patients being ‘afraid’, it’s that psychiatry really is pseudoscience and it has been historically very dangerous, and remains so.
I hope this helps, if you have limited time and can only read one reference, I would highly recommend the last link, that paper covers the history of anti-psychiatry and psychiatry, it is invaluable and enlightening.
Hi Steve,
None of what you have posted talks about psychiatry being a pseudoscience in the least. These are internal critiques of psychiatry, which all of medicine has. Simply because one acknowledges there are limitations to a system, or problems in a system, doesn’t mean the system in itself isn’t beneficial. Every branch of medicine can say the same. What about all the GPs over-prescribing everything from Viagra to antibiotics to antidepressants? Are GPs bad because of this or are there simply flaws in the system?
– Natasha Tracy
I often get that response, so i usually make no attempt to explain to people why i believe that psychiatry is pseudoscience. Hear me out though, ill try to be brief.
Psychiatry is the study of the subjective symptoms of an causative illness of unknown etiology. Mental illness, like anxiety, hearing voices, delusions, and depression are symptoms.
For example, depression can be caused by Grieving, which is normal behavior.
It can also be produced by a B-12 Deficiency, hyperthyroidism, and drug dependence. In these cases Depression is symptom produced by a malfunction of information processing in the brain, which is a machine that operates on essentially the same principle as all other systems which process information.
What psychiatric symptoms have nothing to do with their cause, and are somewhat random manifestations of a disruption in information processing in the brain? If that’s the case, then nothing psychiatry has studied is useful. The symptoms have no utility except to flag people for diagnostic testing to figure out what the malfunction is. This is prominently why psychiatry is pseudoscience, it study’s the subjective instead of the objective.
If one goes to a GM and complains of depression, one might receive a blood test to look for for a B-12 deficiency, and perhaps a thyroid blood test as well. If one goes to a psychiatrist one is subjectively diagnosed with ‘Depression” and prescribed an antipdrepseent regardless of why the patient is depressed. There usually is no attempt whatsoever to perform diagnostic tests for common causes of depression already known to medicine. Diagnosis is an End Point, unlike in medicine where people can be referred to other specialists if nothing is found, or the problem is not in their own field.
Psychiatry as a field does not acknowledge the brain is a machine. Rather, bizarre chemical imbalance theories are created. Neurotransmitters are just one part of neurons that allow them to perform information processing, and in this case control the frequency of neural firing – similar to adjusting the voltage on a transistor microprocessor. This is how stimulants and sedatives work. Certainly this addresses no cause of malfunction, but gets a subjective effect. Neurology has been very explicit in this specific criticism, that “mental illness” needs to be replaced with “brain dysfunction” for psychiatry to continue to exist in a modern age where the rest of medicine can clearly see what psychiatry’s treatments are objectively doing to the functioning of a patients brain, the same treatments psychiatry claims it “doesn’t know how they work”.
I think perhaps you have been too dismissive of professional criticism in psychiatry’s own field, and the significance of it. There are no neurologists criticizing neurology as a field, or gastroenterologists, or general practitioners questioning their own field.
Sure over prescription is a problem in medicine, but that’s a completely different type of problem. For example psychiatric diagnosis has poor reliability and is still a subjective diagnosis, many of the reasons are explain in this publication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922387/
All the other fields of medicine used science to better understand the cause of illness and developed tests to detect causes and actual tools to treat illness. An example is how neurology studied Huntingtons disease and discovered it was a prion miss-fold disease and now a gene therapy drug is being developed to fix the specific genes damaged to cure the condition someday soon. Psychiatry on the other hand, is still studying subjective symptoms, and remains divided in psychotherapy and drugging people. Psychiatry still can not agree what the subjective symptoms of schizophrenia are to diagnose it. If neurology had done that they never world have discovered the cause of Huntingtons.
When it comes down to it, the rest of medicine passe psychiatry by, devolving diagnostic test from science and discovering how all the systems in the body work. Technology is rapidly advancing, and yet Psychiatry is dying from lack of recruitment.
I think that most people have a poor understanding of science because the full scientific method isn’t taught in school (it’s a good 600 page book). When a particular field of science doesn’t produce anything that’s not subjective, it’s usually a red flag. Science does not allow subjective observations, as it was created to offer an alternative to philosophical conjecture. If this is true, then how is mental illness being studied at all?
This was the reasoning I used to develop the beliefs that i have. I hope it’s polite enough you’ll hear me out. I’m sorry it’s so long, i honestly couldn’t figure out how to shorten it.
Hi Steve, most psychiatric illness have a neurological basis and are certainly not subjective. There is a massive amount of evidence gained through researching brain structure and function to prove this. If you would like to read about what neuroscience researchers have discovered about Psychiatric illness, please click on this link: https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=qCVy9hgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra
This will take you to the WHO website of scholarly citations of research by a world leading Neurologist called Dr. Paul Thompson. Cheers, Amanda
Why would one be willing to follow an institution in chaos? DR Anderson’s comments in the New York Times has caused a great stir.Dr Marcia Angell, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, criticized the field of psychiatry. John H. Krystal, MD defends the profession but if you scroll down in the comments BERNARD CARROLL , ” Dr. Krystal’s commentary fails on a number of levels.” Then you have the DR Baughman, DR Breggins. and a vast number of psychiatrist sharing their views. Do behavior problems exist- sure they do. Do they exist by means of biological causes even the NIMH says ,” Although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist there is evidence supporting the validity of the disorder” That evidence they speak of is empirical knowledge. They are studying behaviors and dabbling with drugs in order to modify them before ruling out other obvious factors. These docs claim chemical imbalances, and treat off behaviors not brain abnormalities that in lies the problem. Again from the NIMH ,” our knowledge about the cause of ADHD remains largely speculative” One could draw the conclusion they don’t know- Well if one does know what he/she is talking about is it not hard to trust or follow them. Look at Dr. Mosher resigning from the American Psychiatric Association.and why. Fraud, corruption and unethical practices surround the field and it is still going on today. For you Christians out there the Bible tells of of today’s dealing in Revelations 18:23. Using a King James version sorcery is derived from the Greek word PHARMAKEIA which translates to pharmacy in English. What is fact that drugs used to treat these ailments pose real side affects up to and including death. Look at the various websites or even the reports in the FDA Medwacth hell even the warning labels!. Look at the epidemiology in relation to all that is going on and it become blatantly apparent what is going on The psychiatry field is chaos from a number of fronts most from it’s own doing. The field tries to ,”control” behavior.. Humans were never meant to be controlled especially in the United States
People today are anti-psychiatry or pro-reform because they were born with intact bullshit detectors- unlike some people. Natasha, you’re the one whose scared into persistent delusion. You’re opinion are those of a battered wife trying to convince people that her husband actually cares.
One of your many appalling arguments: “…I agree it’s not good that the DSM is decided by votes…but they’re developing physiological tests!! Any decade now.”
Keep waiting for that.
Behaviors can never be diseases and wishing they were will not make it so. Please stop writing unforgivably subjective and emotionally manipulative crap. That is an accuarate description of everything you have written about mental health industry.
Yah!
Natasha, I hope one day that you ARE involuntarily commited and you ARE given treatment against your will (which could be ECT as I believe you have had it before and that gives them an excuse to do it again) then you may actually see the light and join the anti-psychiatry lot. That is if you are not really an undercover psychiatrist. However it can still happen to them! You will then know what real fear is. At the moment you are docile and do what they say but when you resist or you start having adverse effects to their ‘treatment’ they WILL lock you up! Be warned – it is only a matter of time!
Cheryl,
When you choose to come on here and say such vicious things about me it says considerably more about you than it does about me and it certainly doesn’t help your cause or make you sound the list bit reasonable.
– Natasha
I speak because your blog is so dangerous to vulnerable people and if you were to get better insight then you could do so much good. Just as my incarceration was a terrible thing to happen to me but was in the end for the greater good as it made me speak out against the way the mentally distressed are treated by the system which we pay for.
Um, “incarceration”? You do come across as a person who has aggressive tendencies. Since you mentioned it, might I inquire as to the reason for your incarceration?
Natasha, frankly, I don’t understand where you got the idea that I wanted “data handed to me on silver platter”. I ADMITTED I could not “prove” my belief that hundreds of thousands of people HAVE had negative experiences w/ psychiatry, just a well-thought out estimate based upon the people who HAVE spoekn out or had documented instances of such (I do not have the link right here in front of me, and even if I did you would probably argue them as well, simply because it doesn’t fit your beliefs already). The same way you cannot “prove” that decent treatment is the norm(as even resaearch findings are notoriously arguable, assuming they exist for this specific matter and in general), though I’m sure you have your own basis for this belief, wh/is no more or less valid than mine.
Can we agree to disagree on this point?
BOTH of us have formed our own opinions on the matter of psychiatry on whatever bases we have formed them upon, “valid” or not. Even “studies” are open to interpretation via the peer-view system, and the link you provided OPENLY REVEALED that many patients ALSO complained of thememory-erasing side-effects of ECT, as well as their reported benefits.
Actually, I was commenting IN GENENRAL on those patient satisfaction surveys psych units often have patients fills out— RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSES, breathing down their necks (so to speak); uhhhhhhhhh… even MY OWN pdoc said this was FLAGRANTLY inappropriate and should have been reported. If folks were TRULY secure they treated people under their care right and w/ decency, then WHY ALL THE nosiness, lack of privacy, surveillance and lack of anonymity when we are doing rating surveys?
It seems to ME (at least) that if you knew darn well that you did right by a patient(s), then WHY FEAR what they put down about you, right?
You confuse OPINION with FACT. *Natasha” (unusually for a journalist?!) never seems to confuse them: She is very clear about the facts she reports and her opinions when she states them. That is one of the primary reasons why I come back time and again to her blog.
[loudly sighing]
Harry… I APOLOGIZED for the NTH TIME, and I thought I cleared all this up. I refuse to argue about this anymore; you either accept or reject what I have said about guestimates, and (arguable, as is all research suggestions) backing up research. I, for one, am done talking about that subject.
What about dishonest administration of satisfaction surveys, for the OTHER topic I intoduced? (which was UNRELATED to what NAtasha had linked me to, by the way, and I thought I made this clear).
THAT is what I was finally asking about , NOT the other thing which I thought we already agreed to disagree to.
We didn’t agree to disagree and I didn’t notice the earlier post was an apology, but I accept it in this one.
Customer satisfaction surveys are always problematic. I know because I used to earn by bread designing and running them. They are pretty crappy at gauging the extent of satisfaction at any one time because respondents don’t use or understand the satisfaction scales the same way: E.g. we may feel exactly the same about a service received yet you may score “very satisfied” and I might just “satisfied”. I worked for a postal bank, but when the post office workers went on strike our service delivery stayed the same; and yet, customer satisfaction with us dipped significantly every time the post office workers went on strike. See what I mean? The levels of satisfaction are driven by the mood when the survey is completed … and since Bipolar folk have variable moods … The best customer satisfaction surveys can be used for is in tracking trends in satisfaction over time i.e. so we can see if the overall service is perceived to be getting better or getting worse. And even that is problematic because customer expectations change: What may have been satisfactory once is unsatisfactory now … And then, they are also influenced by a) the sample design, b) the question design (including the order of the questions) c) the interviewing method, and d) the response rate. Everyone of those factors can skew the results. E.g. “supervised” interviewing, be it one-to-one or a questionnaire filled in, in the presence of the survey presenter, can cause respondents to score more generously than they would if they completed the survey in a place of their own time and choosing on their own; that’s because there is a tendency for respondents to want to please the interviewer. I could tell you more but you’ll get the picture without extra information. Point is this: Customer satisfaction surveys are generally INDICATIVE of satisfaction levels, not precise measurements however much maths is behind them. So, when all the arrows say satisfied with this and very satisfied with that, the results may be read as being that, on average, customers are, on the whole, probably broadly satisfied with the service they receive. That’s “probably”. So, if I can see the details of how a survey has been designed and carried out, or at least, who did it, then I can judge if the results offered are robust or not. That means ANY customer satisfaction survey reports that I see published anywhere I take with a pinch of salt at least until I get that background information.
Where to start? First off, there is Graham’s equally paltry and fatuous expression of incredulity at the fact that some of us are conversant with the Constitution, and understand that forced psychiatric treatment is a crime against humanity. Yet, unsurprisingly, all he can do is express his disbelief, in lieu of a cogent defense of the grounds on which his opinion, implicitly expressed, is founded. This is little more than an unwitting confession of his inability to manufacture a credible reason why psychiatrists should be able to usurp an indivdual’s indefeasible self-soveriegnty over his own body That this is done mostly to people who have committed no crime, only compounds the evil of forced drugging, which is a metaphorical species of rape and assault, and society is complicit in this monstrous iniquity, the truth of which will only be properly diffused when the institution of psychiatric slavery has been consigned to the graveyard of morally untenable institutions, such as chattel slavery.
This display of fatuous incredulity exudes an odour redolent of the most deeply entrenched arrogance and intolerance, and is the autonomic response of some people to things of which they lack the intellectual capacity to properly respond to. Just as it was once was regarded as an axiom that chattel slavery was an imperishable, indispensable institution, and that the slave was ‘three-fifths’ human, it is now regarded as an axiom that forcing a person to take drugs is fine, and that the psychiatric slave is, by tacit admission, not deserving of the rights framed in the constitution, much like the chattel slave.
Graham’s comment is little more than a linguistic marker of his moral idiocy, a phrase that was once used by psychiatrists to describe the ‘insane’, even though such a remark is patently self-incriminating for the psychiatrist so hopelessly lost in the moral abyss, that he imposes himself intolerantly and abusively on others.
He also takes comfort in the thought terminating cliche, ‘if only things were that simple.’ His lack of anything substantive to say on this issue speaks volumes.
Natsha Tracy describes coercion as ‘medical care’. Any relationship between two individuals is inherently political and not medical or therapeutic. People who have been forced to take medication that has given them tardive dyskinesia are victims of an abusive system, and just because, as was common among slaves, they are not always supportive of efforts to abolish this barbarous instituitution, does not make it any the less despicable. To call this ‘medical care’ is linguistic mischievousness of Orwellian proportions, and presupposes that such coercive interventions are made in the interests of the indivdual and not the community, the state and the family.
It is a index of the lunacy of the masses that they think it alright that people with demonstrable diseases have a right to self-determination in their treatment, but that the person who has a non-demonstrable disease, is not deserving of such rights. This is ample confirmation of the prejudice towards certain people labelled as ‘schizophrenic’ in our supposedly exceptional, enlightened society.
Graham, says that there is evidence that medicine works. This is the fallacy of inferring the presence of disease from the fact that some people might feel better after taking drugs. In lieu of hard evidentiary support, this is frankly pathetic. Freud used to use cocaine because it helped him concentrate better. Does that mean his pre-existing state was a medical condition? The reasons why people have such a thirst for taking drugs, licit or illicit, is because they prefer their intoxicated state to their sober state. Does not mean that they have a medical condition. Come on Graham, even you can do better than that.
Tracy quotes a person who says that there is no reason to be afraid of involuntary treatment. What, there is no reason to be afraid of akathisia, no reason to be afraid of neuroleptic malignant syndrome, no reason to be afraid of excruciating dystonic reactions, tardive dyskinesia, diabetes? Do me a favour. What, there’s no reason to be afraid of someone entrusted, foolishly and myopically, with almost plenipotentiary power, vis-a-vis his patients, to drug you and incarcerate you in de facto carceral institutions, without legal recourse, abandoned by your fellow human beings who arrogantly and without warrant think they are more human, sane and decent than you?
Who will guard the guardians, or are the people on here that naive (though corruption is my inference) that they think human beings can reasonably be entrusted with such power and always use it responsibly, and have an infallible way of demarcating the sane from the insane? Who will psychiatrize such philosophical and historical foolishness, such grandiose delusions, such outrageous self-deception? You people are transparent.
I want to scream out to all those anti-psychiatry people, STOP! There seems to be a whole lot of whining about mental health in general. I say keep your head down, keep doing the right thing in terms of your treatment goals and if those goals do not come to frution after some time then get a new doctor!!!! I am lucky. No I am really, really lucky. I have a psychiatrist that is amaing. Not only is she an MD but she is also certified in holistic and intergrative medicine AND if there is something going on that is beyond her scope of knowledge she refers me to yet another awesome doctor that is also certified in intergrative and holistic medicine. I didn’t like my psychiatrist at the start (mostly because she diagnosed me as bipolar) I so I went shopping. Four doctors later I was begging at her door step. She spends a minimum of 30 minutes with me, collaberates with my therapist and even makes time in her schedule for all three of us to meet face-to-face once in a while. She is available via email to answer questions and will return a call on a Sunday afternoon when in a crisis. I have had horrible experiences. I have been in the hospital with awful psychiatrists. The point of the story here is that you or me get to write our own story. If you don’t like something, say so. If you really dislike your doctor talk to friends and family for a referral. I know my health and well being was well worth the homework I did to find my current psychiatrist. It is work to keep going every day, to fight for yourself. I know. Bipolar is not easy. But, I can say that my psychiatrist has been an intergral part of my recovery and of me being here today to type this response.
Hi Jen,
Ah yes, screaming – something I would like to do from time-to-time but I suspect wouldn’t help a lot.
Yes, I think that for the average person, keeping their head down and doing what works is fine advice. And I’m absolutely in agreement with you that if you’re not reaching your treatment goals, a new doctor could be in order.
I think it’s a boon if you have a doctor who is well-versed in alternative medicine although I, personally, don’t see much result from it. Others vary though. And it _is_ good when a doctor admits to their own fallibility and refers you to someone else who might know an area better – that shows good doctoring. You sound like, yes, you’re really, really lucky indeed.
“The point of the story here is that you or me get to write our own story.”
I agree completely and I believe I am living proof of that. You have to take life by the throat and bend it to your will sometimes. It’s hard but we can do it to some extent.
– Natasha Tracy
One point that seems to have been over-looked is that some psychiatrict conditions can, by professional accounts be notoriously difficult to diagnose. I read, for example, that it can take some patients a decade before their Type 2 Bipolar has been correctly diagnosed, with it previously being thought to be unipolar depression or some other disorder with similar symptoms. And the converse: A friend of mine was at first diagnosed as Bipolar but several years later, after almost 20 serious suicide attempts, she was re-evaluated and diagnosis changed to Borderline Personality Disorder. The point here is simple: A wrong diagnosis results in inappropriate treatment. My friend, for example, was stuffed with different types of mood stabilisers and cocktails of them with other drugs, for the erroneous BP diagnosis and none of it made any difference. She was eventually told she was treatment resistent, which gave her no hope at all, and I found myself having to get her to “talk out” suicide intentions through two nights. But the treatment regime changed when the BPD diagnosis was given and she finally began to improve quite rapidly. Now that improvement may have been because of, or in spite of, the treatment regime, of course – we know that mental illness generaly goes into remission at some point; nevertheless, there is a correlation between the fresh diagnosis and her condition, and she now seems almost completely recovered following not only intense psychotherapy but also a complete change of living environment. (They moved country!)
My point is obvious, I hope, but in case not: A MISdiagnosis is likely to engender a a bad experience of psychiatry because the treatment regime is less likely to ease the siffering of the patient, or even make it worse. But a correct diagnosis is more likely to lead eventually to appropriate treatment to relieve, or even remove, the symptoms of the illness.
Hi Harryf200,
That’s a good point and one I wrote about just yesterday: http://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/breakingbipolar/2012/06/misdiagnosing-bipolar-disorder/
Misdiagnosis is a problem – often done by GPs. This is why I always encourage people to see psychiatrists whenever possible – because _they_ are the ones truly qualified at diagnosing a mental illness. Of course, that being said, no one is perfect, to be sure, and a second opinion is also always an option.
I’m sorry your friend had to go through such hell to get a proper diagnosis but it’s great to hear of such a successful recovery.
– Natasha Tracy
Natasha, you hit the nail on the head with this. People fear what they don’t understand. I have learned with other illnesses as well as mental illness, that people have a need to understand (don’t get me wrong…I do too) and therefore try will come to any variety of explanations for what they simply don’t understand. Because, if you can’t understand why something fully, then you must admit that it could very well happen to you. I’ve found this with autoimmune disorders, chronic pain and cancer as well as mental illness. If you can explain it away by saying that the person suffering just needs to change their diet, try harder, pray harder or anything else, then you can reason that their suffering can not befall you. It is sad that it is so difficult for people to step outside of their limited understanding and simply have compassion for others who suffer. I come from a family that is riddled with “mental illnesses” (depression and bipolar disorder going back many generations. I put the term “mental illness” in quotations because I would love to advocate for a name change. I feel like the term mental implies that the disorder is “in your head.” Why then, do medications help? Why do anti-epileptic drugs help? Of course they don’t help everyone, but my point is that I believe mental illness is just a biological as any other illness. I’ve suffered from depression since I was a child. My sister, aunt and grandmother have all had very typical signs of bipolar disorder. I have cousins that live with it as well. Thankfully, my sister and cousins have sought the treatment that my aunt and grandmother were not able to get simply because of misunderstanding and lack of widespread medical knowledge at the time. I may be way off here with wishing for a name change, that’s OK, I’ve been called crazy before. :~) But I so much want to advocate for family members, especially my often misunderstood sister. I truly believe this is just as organic and biological as cancer and other diseases. I don’t know the best way to be an advocate. That is something that I am learning as I live. I help to care for ill family members with a variety of diseases…cancer, heart disease, COPD as a result of medication toxicity…not from smoking, bipolar disorder, and these family members help care for me (depression and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis). I know for a fact that my sister is a completely different person with medication, as am I. I know her heart, her intentions and who she is deep down inside, and I love it when others are able to see the person she really is. Many medications, not just psychiatric ones, carry the phrase, “the mechanism by which this medication works is not know.” That does not mean that medications don’t work. I believe that CBT alone can work for some, but for others, I fully believe in the necessity of medication. It is life changing. Sometimes it is life saving.
I have a friend who had a very bad experience with several psychiatrists. This profession needs to be approached with a great deal of compassion for the human soul. Still, I fell that it is just a necessary to have psychiatrists as it is to have rheumatologists and oncologists.
I only recently found your blog and your Facebook page, but I already think that you write thoughtfully and eloquently about very difficult and sometimes controversial topics. People will make nasty comments here and there, but that is just proof that you are making waves…making people think and making a difference. I hope that you will keep up the good work for a long time to come.
Hi Jules,
Wait a minute – I was RIGHT about something? (You have to have been on Facebook last night to get that one.)
But I digress.
I agree with you that it happens with many illness and not just mental illness. Illness, in general, is scary, and thus people are prone to behave in ways that aren’t reasonable when they’re scared (and yes, no one is immune from that response).
(I wouldn’t mind “mental illness” being changed to something but I despise “behavioral health” and that seems to be the other term. Also, I don’t like changing terms just to make people feel better. A better term doesn’t solve the problem.)
Advocating is hard on all levels but I believe that if you try to represent the person you are advocating for, ardently, then you are doing your job.
Yes, we don’t know how _most_ medications work, but that doesn’t stop us from using them, and rightfully so.
“I have a friend who had a very bad experience with several psychiatrists. This profession needs to be approached with a great deal of compassion for the human soul. Still, I fell that it is just a necessary to have psychiatrists as it is to have rheumatologists and oncologists.”
Absolutely.
“I only recently found your blog and your Facebook page, but I already think that you write thoughtfully and eloquently about very difficult and sometimes controversial topics.”
Thank-you. I try my best. I plan on being here for a long time to come.
– Natasha Tracy
I have received psychiatric treatment for Bipolar Disorder I for the past 23 years. There was a time when I felt harmed by my treatment and turned to the antipsychiatry movement for help and support. I didn’t find any and didn’t do well on my own, so I turned back to psychiatry and found a good psychiatrist and a good therapist that I can trust and who really helps me and, at the moment, I’m doing better than ever. I feel like the antipsychiatry movement does more to blame the patient than help the patient. They like to try to raise consciousness and turn people against psychiatry, but they don’t offer other solutions to mental health care.
Hi Andrea,
That is one of the problems with antipsychiatry – they are against something that sick people _need_ with no replacement. And yes, I feel like many of them _do_ blame the patient. They certainly blame the heck out of me. Blame people for being “duped” by psychiatry and ridicule people for taking life-saving medication.
But I digress. I’m glad you’ve found professionals that you trust and that work with you. That’s what everyone deserves and you’re an excellent example of what can happen with good care.
– Natasha Tracy
I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said “one of the few groups of people”, but rather “one of the groups”.
I’m don’t identify as anti-psychiatry, but the irony and general “I’m offended that you’re offended” tone of your posts still make me tired. I have had this conversation with many people with bipolar disorder. From a medical viewpoint, it is one of the most biological of the so-called mental illnesses, so people with Bipolar Disorder are one of the few groups of people that may benefit from the medical model of psychiatry. People like myself who are depressed because of poverty and isolation may not like being told that we have something biologically wrong with our brains, and then told – when we are suffering and asking for help -that we lack insight into an illness that nobody can prove to us.It is an intensely demeaning experience. To say that these experiences are anomalies and exceptions is as disrespectful as claiming that POCs experiences of racism are anomalies and that their anger against at white supremacy is misdirected. You say you do not like being treated like a child who cannot form your own opinion, yet you do not specify what behaviour it is you’re referring to, other than being insulted by people referring to themselves as psychiatric survivors.
Saying that psychiatric “abuse” is an arguable issue while not tolerating “abuse” on your blog is pretty ironic.
I also argue that negative experiences of a certain treatment weigh heavier than positive experiences. For instance, if somebody was poisoned by a certain brand of food that I happen to love, then I would understand them perfectly if they wanted it to cease being sold. I would not claim that something that harms others should be sold simply because I like it and derive pleasure from it. Especially not when there are plenty of other foods for me to choose from and I would certainly not be offended or feel like they were treating me like a child, simply because they criticized a food that I liked. It reminds me of heterosexual white women who are offended because lesbian feminists are very angry at men for raping women “but I like men, but I wasn’t raped – why isn’t my opinion equally valid”. I’m glad you’ve been helped by psychiatry, but being insecure and insulted by other people’s experiences, is simply something – I think – we should all deal with in private, on our own.
Ellen, I think wires have been crossed. You said, “People like myself who are depressed because of poverty and isolation may not like being told that we have something biologically wrong with our brains, and then told – when we are suffering and asking for help -that we lack insight into an illness that nobody can prove to us.”
I doubt anyone would disagree BUT they have BECAUSE I think contributors here argued against you because they will have assumed you were arguing from the perspective of someone who IS Bipolar for the very reason that this site is for people who are Bipolar.
Hi Ellen,
Well, personally, I would claim to _know_ why another person is experiencing depression as there is a combination of genetic, environmental and psychosocial factors at play. If you feel that environmental factors play the biggest role for you, then I can only assume you are correct, however, one should keep in mind that others could be exactly in your circumstance and _not_ be depressed and thus there is some difference between you and them. Possibly genetic or biological, I couldn’t say.
I’m not sure where I said “psychiatric abuse” was “arguable” as I wouldn’t deny it has taken place. I would simply deny it is the norm.
And I am not insecure about other’s experiences or opinions. They, however, seem to react rather strongly to mine.
– Natasha Tracy
You say, you “don’t deny that psychiatric abuse takes place, only you deny it is the norm”…
While I’m sure one or two people have been rather lucky to have had positive experiences w/ pscyhiatry, what about the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS who have not?
Are their experiences somehow less valid than those who were merely lucky and had nicer experiences?
Further, do you have any quantifiable data to suggest that most people on the receiving end of psychiatry who have had positve expeiences “Are the norm”?
As for the other comment you made, Natasha, I don’t think people are “attacking” YOU, simply your (seeming;I say “seeming” because even this could be subjective and our perception only, I admit) nonchalance toward any experience others may have had w/ psychiatry that was less than pleasant or helpful.
Perhaps, just perhaps you would win MORE people over to being more recptive to psychiatry if you didn’t seem to dismiss their experiences as “simply in the minority, and nor the norm”.
Everyone’s experience is real to them, obviously, and just as even I would never dismiss your claims that psychiatry has helped you personally, I think it’s safe to assume that we all would just wish you would likewise not dismiss our negative experiences with it.
As always, I thank you for the opportunity to express myself and for your blog.
Hi Puddtat,
I don’t agree that hundreds of thousands have had these atrocious experiences and I see no reason why _I_ should have to prove numbers to _you_. If you want to make such a statement then you go find the scientific research to back it up.
Here’s an interesting study where people undergoing ECT primarily view it as positive (not the only study to say so) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446862 and those around the patients view it as even more positive.
That’s just what I could come up with in a short amount of time. Feel free to find scientific studies that state the opposite.
I do not dismiss people’s experience, positive or negative but it seems that no matter how many times I say that, you don’t hear me. Yes, poor experiences are real. They happen. I know that. Everyone knows that. But just because they’re real that doesn’t mean that they’re the norm.
– Natasha Tracy
You said, “While I’m sure one or two people have been rather lucky to have had positive experiences w/ pscyhiatry, what about the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS who have not?” Will you back up those figures with their source, please?
Yeah, the dismissivness and “but…. psychiatry GOOD” arguments often seem to be in line that trains ran on time under Mussolini.
It’s sorta ironic to me that Natasha spends lots of posts telling how she doesn’t have to see any good in bipolar and how it’s just unfair… well, point taken. You can think this. But maybe some of us don’t want to see good in Psychiatry. It didn’t work for us, and we found other way…. is it wrong to tell people who are currently struggling with the system that there are other ways? Instead of “keep trying these meds, and maybe you will find one that will not make you want to rip your head off”… Just because psychiatry helped you, doesn’t mean it’s for everyone or the only way.
Plus some of the criticism is very valid and bad things happen more often than you acknowledge. Being dissmisive of survivors and yakking about saved lifes (while ignoring traumatized ones) will not help anybody.
and I agree with what the other poster said about Schizotypal… with diagnoses as this (and the fact that being gay was also diagnosis not so long ago), it’s hard to take psychiatry seriously.
VERY well said, VenusH!
Both the Natasha and Harry told me to back up my statement that hundreds and thousands of people have had negative experiences w/ psychiatry, yet I have not gotten any quantifiable back up from them, either, so we’re at an impasse (hope I spelled it correctly).
And while not even I will try to argue that many people MAY WELL have been helped by (some unidentified) factor in mainstream psychiatry, it seems really both frustrating and frankly incredible that they would still seem to mostly deny the unhelpful and damaging experiences many have had from psychiatry as well, w/ statements such as “Do you have proof most people have had unhelpful/negative expriences w/ psychiatry?”
All one has to do is take an even SCANT GLANCE at all the folks victimized by mainstream psychiatry to realize that (statistically, mathematically, as well as logically) they repesent a greater number
And, really, I cannot count satisfaction surveys done while IN THE MIDST of those you are rating (along w/all the power they have, as you are still on a locked setting…) as being (in such a context and all the inherent pressures therein) truly honest and w/o (even subtle or mild) duress of cricumstance.
Puddytat,
What I want to know is why you think the data should be given to you on a silver platter? The link I sent you gives free access to the study details and you can look them up yourself and determine if you feel the answers were coerced.
– Natasha Tracy
“I can only assume you are correct, however, one should keep in mind that others could be exactly in your circumstance and not be depressed and thus there is some difference between you and them. Possibly genetic or biological, I couldn’t say.”
Tracy, with all due respect, this is insane reasoning. This is the exact line of faulty thinking that Ellen was trying to describe. Just because someone has a similar circumstances to someone else- yet they don’t become depressed or anxiety ridden- does not mean that their reaction is healthy.
Example.
In my late teens I worked in a group home for people with developmental disabilities and the residents were abused by the staff.
I recall that one of the residents was not depressed. However, I somehow always felt the worst for him. Even though the others were confrontational and conveniantly psychiatrically labelled- they were human and they would not be broken. What those residents were perceiving (an abusive situation, constrictive limitations, ridicule, years if gross neglect, contemptuousness from staff, loneliness, abandonment by family) was correct a perception. In my opinion, their reaction was healthy, self-preserving, and inuitive.
Yes, one resident was seemingly content and “emotionally healthy”. But this is scarce proof that the others had signs of a genetic or biological problem, as you say.
What I witnessed in that group home made me lean towards and sympathize with anti-psychiatry philosphy. Medical sounding labels were given to explain undesirable behaviors and real human needs and problems were ignored and glossed over. I saw how diagnosis can be used to control and disempower vulnerable people and it’s not something anyone with a conscious should ignore just because the term psychiatric survivor offends you.
You state in a post above that the tem “Psychiatric Survivor” rubs you the wrong way.
1.)Maybe, just MAYBE the people who view themselves as survivors DID experience VERY negative experiences within inpatient settings as well as w/ the shrinks themselves; has this ever occured to you? For all the potential (and I suppose many actual) benefit(s) psychiatry can/maybe has done, experiences such as being labeled as “schizotypal” simply because you have beliefs that encompass “New Age” or “:superstitious” things (according the the pdoc and society and being liable to having your very freedom snatched away —- ALL due to the biased lens’/observation of a pdoc) MAY cause a human being to think of themselevs as a survivor, not beneficiary, right?
2.)Or maybe, just MAYBE, after being violently “taken down”, restrained, and essentially helpless… a male psych tech using this opportnity to sodomize you(brutally and disgustingly, I might add) while the nurses are safely away in their stations texting to their friends… MAY cause one NOT to view, inpatient “care” as such a wonderful thing. Further, couple this w/ the fact that many who defend psychiatry w/ try to wiggle out of such occurances by saying “Well, I don’t know the facts in said case, so I can’t comment either way on it either way” or those whose job it is to PROTECT vulnerable people simply dismiss the patients coming forward to report w/ “Well, how do you know it’s even TRUE? They ARE psych pateints, and it MAY be all in their minds or perhaps, they are lying to get back at the [said staff member]” Rather frightening, as I’m sure even you won’t disagree with natasha.
3.)While TRUE, TRUE, TRUE… ALL fields have their bad apples, as you often (correctly) state, but (and a very BIG “but” too!), in those other fields, you are FREE TO LEAVE!!!!!!!! You can NOT leave a secure setting, right?
Whatever arguments you may (perhasps, in certain instances, justifiably) have FOR psychiatriy, defenders of it who IGNORE ALL the DAILY abuses within this area will ALWAYS have a hard time convincing anyone of the “good” of psychiatry.
Thank you once aagin for the opportunity of allowing even dissident viewpoints to exchange ideas and thoughts. And since I try to think of myself as a fair persona as well, PLEASE feel free to respond w/ your own thoughts to what I pointed out in my comments.
Hi Puddy Tat,
I’ll see what I can do about responding to you, but in my opinion you have been very aggressive in your comment and that doesn’t invite conversation.
Yes, people who view themselves as survivors may have had negative experiences. In fact, I would assume so. That does seem obvious. But that doesn’t mean that the term still doesn’t rub me the wrong way. No one says they’re a “survivor” of any other branch of medicine in spite of the fact that bad outcomes happen every day. And the only two options are not “survivor” or “beneficiary.” There is simply consumer, which is what we are.
And yes, of course, inpatient care can also be abusive, just like it can be in any field. I’m not suggesting that abuses do not exist in the world – of course they do. And of course I agree that any such abuse should be taken seriously and dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.
I would never simply ignore abuses of any system but what I would say is that they have to be placed in context.
– Natasha Tracy
You mention in your reply post to me “no one points out being a survivor in other branches of medicine”…
1.) Actually, anyone who has undergone aggressive chemotherapy often WILL call themsleves a “survivor”, in there IS a big holistic health movement in the field of oncology which rejects mainstream protocol for cancer treatment. Or, many simply opt 4 Hopsice care, rather than undergo the often brutal process of aggresive chemo.
2.) We are here in the context of mental health, thus mental health is what comes up under the said “survivor” term,. especially 4 those who have mostly seen and PERSONALLY EXPEIENCED ONLY negativity and abuse w/in it (yeah, yeah, there were 1 or 2 staff mebers who were not, granted, and those VERY TINY MINORITY deserve their due in this instance). And, I see I must repeat, even on the oncology ward one is free 2 leave if there is abuse; you can NOT do this in a locked setting, which again seems very frightening to me and most people (I would imagine).
3.) And even when people DO come 4ward w/ what took place,their credibility is called into question, as you yourself pointed out all because of said “diagnosis”discrimination on the other website; (EXCELLENT article you wrote, and I agree w/ it 100% You were right on!), and the techs continue to sodomize and abuse those in their “care”… and it happens daily, I’m afraid.
4.)You never mentioned your thoughts on the “diagnosis of “schizotypal” And the fact that even some long-time psychiatrists are questioning the veracity of it (Breggin, Allen, etc.); should simply being “supertitious” men being considered “ill”?
5.) I apologize if you took offense to what you viewed as my post’s “aggresive tone”. I would disagree and call it, moreso, emphatic, as I seemed to percieve that you, along w/ many others do not seem to adequately address all the described abuses in psychiatry, only brushing them off by pointing fingers at other branches of medicine saying “There are rotten apples in all fields”. Quite, true, Ms. Tracy, but I must again emphasize that people experiencing abuse in “other fields” of medicine are FREE to leave; you cannot do this in a secure setting where much of the abuse takes place, and something about this just isn’t right.
As you succinctly pointed out in your very well written and rigth on article on discrimination of mentally ill people, we are PEOPLE FIRST, out labels second, and we do NOT deserve all the absue we get daily from those who are simply in a position to do so.
I have a gut feeling that if enough attention were paid to the eggregious (hope I spelled it correctly!) wrongs that take place in inpatient care settings, MORE people WOULD come 4ward themsleves 4 treatement. When it is ignored and brushed under the rug, tis, WILL cause a lot of resentment and aviodance of this area altogether—–even when it IS needed, wouldn’t you agree?
Again, I apologize if I came off as rude or “aggressive”, but I AM human, and personal experience (yet somehow STILL willing to give benefit of the doubt) has cuased me some strogn feelings on what I see as a quite serious matter not being taken seriously or brushed away w/ “ell, bad things happen in ALL areas of life; why pick on psychiatry”…. because again, in those said other areas of life you can usually walk away; you can NOT on a locked setting and labels STICK w/ you 4 life.
I thank you for your discourse and this interesting blog giving insight on the area of Bi-Polar.
But I didn’t offer any claims that require being backed up with a source. It was YOU who made unsubstantiated claims and still fail to back them up with a verifiable source. Sorry, I am in no mood to be charitable this evening, so I will suggest you have not offered up the source of your assertions because there isn’t one, that your claim of what is True is actually conjecture and not based on any facts save for your own sample of one, or maybe a handful more.
Harry:
And I am, likewise, in no mood to be chartiable to you either (just to use your own, exact words; I am generally not a rude person).
Do I have the hard figures right in front of me at this very point in time? No,I readily ADMIT I do not, just as neither of you have any hard, UNBIASED numbers to back up what you two claim also, so on this one, solitary point, we are even.
However, I must say that I find it quite curious that you were unable to comment on the REST of my post, and the ENTIRE piece should, fairly, have been taken in it’s entire context.
What are the CONDITIONS of the patients who took “satisfaction surveys”? Were they in the midst of those they were rating about standing over their shoulders or who have them in “protective custody”? Is this truly a fair scenario/context in which to give unblemished, honest feedback for any real use? Was an incentive of some sort offered for favorable responses?
What claims have I made that require backing up? Please point them out and I shall do my best to do so. I simply asked you to back up your claims with a source. You haven’t and admit you can’t. Therefore, your claim of the manitude of the problem is worthless even if it happened to be right …. but we don’t have the evidence to prove you are right or wrong.
Otherwise, I have not commented on anything else in your posts because I feel no reason to do so. Do you wish me to do so? Sure, I’d agree there are issues – why, I even have some gripes myself; the first psychiatrist I saw never even told me or my GP I was Bipolar and, as a consequence, a decade later, the GP prescribed antidepressants that the warning on the box said should NEVER be given to someone who is Bipolar. It flipped me into the mother of all dysphoric hypomanias and damn near killed me. Not worked since. Five #### years later, here I am! But I’ve no complaints whatsoever with my last two psychiatrists or the medication, which though not perfect, works well enough without damaging side effects. Why, I am even allowed alcohol with these babes. So, yes; I know there can be problems. My issue is that I get ticked off when people make sweeping statements about ANY subject, not just MI, that they claim as truths but which they cannot back up with real evidence.
Hi Harry,
GOODNESS gracious!!!!!
I made a guestimate and—— ALL heck breaks loose here!!!
My HUMBLE apologies, Harry for this unforgiveable sin, the human tendency to speculate according to what seems to be true the one’s very BEST knowledge, information , and belief, just as I had done; would you PLEASE find it in your heart to forgive me???
And even though saying “Mistreatment is not the norm” is a guestimate as well, if you notice, I simply pointed this out, chalked it up to each person having their own sets of beliefs based on their own experiences, primarily, as well as external sources they happen to believe and I left it alone at that, and moved to other issues.
Hostility, in my opinion, needs ot be avoided at all costs, and when I seemed to notice this happening, I simply chalked it up to “Let’s agree to disagree” and left matters at that.
And I LIKEWISE, Harry, had a similar reaction to Abilify seven years ago; it made me SUPER depressed, sleepy, caused almost life-threatening diarrhea, etc. and my pdoc took me off it, pronto. So, I can relate to meds mismanagement, but even that was not my own greatest gripe.
SO, I ask again, don’t you find it inappropriate to violate a pateint’s privacy while they are supposed to be fillinf out an ANONYMOUS satisfaction rating survey form? Standing there, WATCHING them rate how you treated them and their time on said ward or unit?
This happened to ME, and even my outptatient pdoc is it was “GROSSLY unprofessional” of theinpatient unit staff to administer the survey this way.
What are your thoughts on occurances such as this?
I was a victim of coerced psychiatry,
I think it’s discusting how they take people with situational emotional problems and put them on pills that cause mental illness then give them more pills for the chemically induced mental illnesses they created.
9 times out of 10 “danger to self or others” means :
1. Not submissive or drugged enough (same thing)
2. Wants to go home but has good insurance
3. Refuses medication that destroys health and cognitive function..
4. doesn’t like false imprisonment and demands rights (BP mixed episode)
Anyone made sick from psych drugs and then subject to these abuses understands anti-psych.
Anyone who has ever heard the standard threats “injectable form” and “state hospital” cause they don’t want to take chemical lobotamy pills understands anti psych.
So, now you are ”çoercing” people toward your religion, to justify your fear of going back for proper treatment. I am sorry for you.
My religion ? I am a survivor of psychiatric abuse, thats what led me here.
“Sorry those pills we gave you made you have panic attacks and landed you in the hospital, we dont care what you were like BEFORE ever taking our experimental poison and the fact you never had panic attacks in your whole life.”
Take these ones or its “injectable form” and the “state hospital” psych-prison.
Medieval Quacks.
Sorry, many of your comments seem to come off a religious website I read once. This may be conincidental then.
I get why you’re pissed off with the side effects – they’re pretty bad and pretty common. However so is psychiatric illness. It’s pretty bad and pretty common. It would be great if there was a magic pill with no side effects but this is simply not the case.
I take it that you would prefer not to be treated at all, that in fact there is nothing wrong with you but a few ”eccentricities”, that would even have been an advantage in other types of societies.
Personally I prefer not to have to put up with the symptoms.
I have a bit Trichotillomania or feeling-for-split-ends-on-hair-when-anxious, its like nail biting. The abusive hospital I went to took my hat during “intake” ( strip search + squat and cough wile naked ) Then they say up on the floor “we can’t get you a hat” I made them say “we won’t get you a hat” cause that was the truth. They have a “dress code”.
They did not care anything about me or understand my condition.
Then they wanted to start me on antipsychotics and mood stabilizers that would have ended my exercise program, the thing that gives me self esteem, a strong look so I dont have to take crap from people and a better chance at a girl friend. These drugs would also remove feelings of motivation and pleasure from all activity.
I was threatend with injectable form long acting risperadol and the state hospital for refusing medication. I took some to sleep in that hell hole. No mood stabilizers and refused haldol.
I lived in captivity under these threats for 3 weeks refusing to harm myself with there drugs.
The stress from the threats made it look like I “needed” more mistreatment in the name of treatment.
In an act of desperation I told them if you inject that stuff in my body (rape) before you do it think about what will happen to you in the future when we are on even ground outside.
A patient gave me the number for a human rights group, I was out in 2 days.
My family gets a bill for $17,000
The PTSD from feeling helpless and abused is tearing me up still 10 months later.
Im done with psychiatry .
I am so sorry, for your experiences and for what I said. I have been sitting here in sadness for about twenty minutes after reading your post. My hospital experiences were somewhat undignified, but not like what you have described here.
I have never been subjected to a strip search, nor seen that any other patient was subjected to one. They searched belongings only. We could wear whatever we wanted and keep whichever belongings we liked with us – potentially dangerous items were kept in a personal safe.
I looked up online about trichotillomania and became basically informed within about five minutes. Actually I learned that the skin-picking I was doing for six months or so might be related to this. I figure that if bandaids helped me, then a hat would certainly help you. Shame on them for not knowing what the condition was.
I do find that there is not nearly enough ‘listening to patients’ going on in hospitals. They analyse you rather than listen. I had to learn how to talk to them to get the desired result. I think what happens to patients often depends on the staff member who is on and also the culture of the institution you are in. Any request for support is seen as “attention seeking”
I just can’t get over the ‘dress code’ you describe. I used to work in intellectual disability services – all of the older clients had been institutionalised when younger and had been made to wear a úniform”, to line up naked to shower, and basically bereft of any dignity at all. I thought that those days were over, that patients of hospitals and institutions were allowed their own personal belongings and style. I just can’t conceive of any practical reason to deny you of a hat, other than laziness or power.
Oh and the ‘medicine” – now, i’m all for psychiatric medication, i take it myself. But my early experiences were not so good. When my symptoms first started I tried to deal with them without medication for about a year and a half – but they only got worse. The GP I usually went to had changed practices, leaving me with a new one, a pill -pusher. I requested a psychiatry referral. He suggested Zoloft first. I said I think my issues are more complex than just depression, I need an in-depth evaluation. He said I’ve got some Zoloft here in the cupboard, it will take weeks for a psychiatrist, why not try this first? With a ‘don’t you trust me’?’kind of look. I took the Zoloft. Within two weeks, my manic psychosis was at boiling point. I went to hospital to get ”cleansed of the poison” – and of course I was given more “”poison”. I went into a psychotic rage. I alternated between throwing chairs and huddling in the corner thinking I was in a concentration camp. But eventually the ‘poison” (temazepam) kicked in and I was sound asleep. In the morning the nurses did a lot to gain my trust. Myself and the other patients were treated extremely well. The psychiatrists listened to me. One even got an empathetic tear in his eye as I described some of my depressive symptoms.
Two weeks later, having settled down on some seroquel, i was transferred to another hospital, closer to my home, so that the follow-up services would match up. The culture was different here. Still competent, but not so kind. The nurse unit manager liked to check on us at night by shining a flashlight in our faces. I saw the consultant there, in a big team meeting of eight strangers. I tried anxiously to explain my condition to him. He didn’t listen, just analysed, he said I wasn’t making sense, that I had thought disorder. (now, looking at my diary entries from that time, he was certainly correct). But if he’d listened he would have got the whole clinical picture. Instead I was diagnosed as ”psychosis not otherwise specified” and given a high dose of risperadol. When I was in hospital I was also taking valium, which blocked the side effects of the risperadol. But, when home the valium was withdrawn and so the extrapyramidal (stroke-like) symptoms started. I was drooling and couldn”t swallow or speak properly.
The outpatient doctor was a professor and my case manager was an occupational therapist. They were absolutely brilliant. The professor changed my antipsychotic and added an antidepressant. The case manager looked after my immediate needs and also started some therapy, and taught me how to identify early warning signs. I recovered completely in 18 months, or so it seemed.
Eventually I had another manic episode, and it was caught early thanks to the work of the case manager, before psychosis set in. In hospital this time I was diagnosed with bipolar I and given lithium. Follow up treatment has also added an anti-depressant.
Some excellent mental health professionals have helped me navigate the ins and outs of the system and become more independent in managing my mental illness. I have no doubt that they saved my mind and my life, apart from a few stumbles along the way.
I have tardive dyskinesia in my hands – one of my fingernails has gone black from excess friction. But, I am happily married and have a future to look forward to, even though I must make some modifications to my expectations.
It kind of helps that my government pays for all of the treatment. I have financial stress enough.
I would like to see the process of change in the mental health system somewhat speeded up – there are already way too many stories like yours.
There is nothing medical or scientific about the treatment you receive.
Rolls eyes. I love how you make a big statement like that but back it up with nothing. That is probably because you have nothing.
1. There are no tests known to medical science that you in fact “have” an illness. Nothing
That is the reason no one gets a “chemical imbalance test”. No one ever has.
There are, however, medical trials that show how effective, or not, are certain treatments as there are also the data collected from family doctors/GPs that offer a long-term picture of their effectiveness.
While I agree with many of your points, I ask you do not stereotype all “mad pride” groups. Not all of them are anti-psychiatry in the sense that they are against seeking treatment, taking medication, etc. In fact, all of them that I have been involved with have been supportive of those who take medication and don’t put pressure on anybody. These group simply support choice and humane treatment. They have brought lawsuits against institutions for abuse, as an example, and they speak against the idea that everyone must be on medication. I don’t know your experiences; but many, when they have inquired about tapering off, have been shot down and told that, given their illness, they could never do that. It’s a personal choice; however, many of us have tapered off and informed consent means being aware that option may exist. They also oppose Assisted Outpatient Treatment and the like, which does not require one be incompetent to make medical decisions and/or a danger to self or others. I know you support it; however, as I have expressed to you in the past, I don’t and find it unjustifiable from a legal standpoint (and, yes, if you are going to take away a right, you need a legal argument, not a medical one).
I’m involved in various forms of mental health groups, from traditional (NAMI, etc) to Mad Pride. All bring something to the table and, while absolute anti-psychiatry is bad, not “everything other than traditional” is.
*don’t find it justifiable
Also, just to reiterate: I am not antipsychitry. I see a psychiatrist, have been on medication and credit them with saving my life. I would tell anyone suffering to seek treatment.
It’s also not so black and white.
Hi Erika,
Well, I don’t mention mad pride so I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was talking about them.
I haven’t had experience with mad pride groups so all I know is what Wikipedia tells me about it and what it says generally rubs me the wrong way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_pride
But like I said, I have no personal experience to base that on. Moreover, I know that mad pride groups are across countries so there is no doubt they vary in their stance on all sorts of things.
– Natasha Tracy
In your article, Doctors Should Treat Mentally Ill Without Consent (which you linked to here), you mentioned various Facebook groups — I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that these were in reference to Mad Pride groups, as your description fit what they usually do and fight for.
Out of curiosity, what about it rubs you the wrong way?
Hi Erika,
At the time I was writing that I was being inundated with Facebook groups that did all sorts of things I thought were ridiculous. I still get added to these types of groups simply because I’m involved with mental health. But, as we all know, any weirdo can start a Facebook group.
As for made pride, I think whenever people call themselves “psychiatric survivors” it rubs me the wrong way. I am personally offended that medical care is something to be “survived.” I think it’s insulting to me and all those who need/use psychiatric services.
– Natasha Tracy
Hi Natasha,
I’ve read these posts with interest – they sum up the debate well. I’m not anti-psychiatry per se, but as a psychologist I have a bit of a problem with some of the things I’ve seen. Things like ward rounds, or meetings where all the “professionals” sit around and talk about the client beforehand, then the person is allowed in to sit (probably terrified) and be told what is wrong with them, I find deplorable. Psychiatrists who make personal comments about clients in front of them, I find unnecessarily cruel. And for me, most of the problem is that we’re so used to the medical model (because it is literally all we know, psychology grew out of a society that had already embraced medicine) that we don’t know how to do things differently. People come for help, we “cure” them. And psychiatrists (and psychologists), whilst in a position of huge power, are not able to promise this.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some amazing psychiatrists out there, who genuinely love their jobs and care about people. But it’s hard (as a patient or as a professional) to stand up to the ones who aren’t so good. I hope people do continue to “be brave,” and can be more brave in the future, to improve things for everyone.
Hi, I know exactly what you are talking about here – I’ve had to sit in my pajamas in front of a circle of esteemed professionals by myself. It’s daunting and terrifying to be asked questions, and when you answer them they don’t listen to what you are saying, rather how you are saying it which is the basis for the diagnosis. I’ve been one of the professionals in the group before too. It doesn’t exactly allow for good patient-practitioner communication. Perhaps that’s why it takes so long to get the diagnosis right in the first place!
More enlightened institutions will have the professionals make their assessments individually according to expertise. Then the team will meet and have a case conference. One or two representatives of the team will then go and meet with the patient and his family or an advocate about the outcome of the assessment and the plan from there. Treatment compliance is usually excellent in this situation.
Although the medical model is quite scary, it’s what we’re used to. I think that being at the mercy of an exorcist, cult, or even an alternative practitioner is much more scary to me.
And then there are the Scientologists. (Sighs and rolls eyes).
Natasha thanks for fighting the good fight.
Hi MadamBipolar,
I try not to single out any religious group just on personal policy but yes, I have to known to eye-roll rather dramatically at the mention of Scientology.
– Natasha Tracy
Fear makes people do a lot of stupid things, aNd fear of psych wards can make you reAl stupid. As I came close too. All it would have is one call to the clinic to tell them I hd ulcers, and they could of adjusted everything…
Don’t be scared. Be brave. It saves a lot of hell in the long run
Hi Monica,
“Don’t be scared. Be brave. It saves a lot of hell in the long run”
Well said.
– Natasha
Have you seen the rants of Patch Adams on psychiatry? OMG! e.g. “Involuntary psychiatric commitments, forced electric shock, forced medication. I want to go on record for being very much against those things and, you know, I’ve had a lot of concern for the psychiatric profession anyway. I saw how I was treated. And I’ve looked in psychiatric texts all over the world and I’ve never found one with a single sentence on mental health. These are supposed to be the mental health experts.” Doesn’t that leave you speechless?! I have a lot of respect for the guy (even though I did once see him about to embark on an air flight with long clown shoes) but when it comes to mental health … It gets worse: “The labels that the mental professionals use do not make them diseases….They are labels for a constellation of behaviors….(What) l’m very confident is—is that if compassion and generosity, if empathy were to weigh we would have no idea what mental illness in that society would be. I actually am not convinced there would be any. There could be a celebration of eccentricities.” So, if I read this right, according to Patch, mental illness would not exist if we all loved each other … Oh boy. If only it was that simple!
HI Graham,
Well, Patch Adams viewed things through a very specific lens. One that helped a lot of people but he may not have been right about everything. And I’m not sure mental illness was his speciality.
And yes, if only it were that simple.
– Natasha Tracy
Natasha, I think it was his specialty as a patient, not a doctor.
Good point.
– Natasha