http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOScYBwMyAA
In his video linked above he takes quotes out of context, misleads viewers, and straight out tells untruths. This would surely have to damage his credibility.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
Do you think it is appropriate to diagnose an 'illness' based purely on someone's behaviour and emotions, extreme though they may be, when there is no known medical etiology or pathology?
Psychiatric methodology is pseudo-scientific. Psychiatry is the modification of socially unacceptable behaviour through the metaphor of regarding the dissident's mind as a physical organ in the body, which might be "diseased". As alluring as that metaphor may be, there is no actual organ in question, and so there can be no actual pathology within the body to explain the alleged 'symptoms' of disease. Not in the mind. If it is thought that there is a lesion in the brain giving rise to the symptoms, the patient is correctly referred to a neurologist.
Psychiatrists claim to be doctors treating diseases in an entirely metaphorical organ of the human body. There is little difference between the "mind" and the "soul" or between a psychiatrist and a priest, except that a priest probably wouldn't recommend taking dangerous, addictive and powerful psychotropic drugs to save your soul... And would charge a lot less.
gamma_rat.
True that.
Well this is exactly where Molyneux misleads people. Although mental illnesses are diagnosed subjectively; people who suffer from them are proven to have irregularities in their brains. These differences can be seen in scans.And for alot of mental illnesses their is a know etiology. Most are at least somewhat genetic, while bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have been shown to have much stronger links with genetics. Other disorders such as disasociative identity disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, seasonal affective disorder, unipolar depression, etc, have been shown to have very strong, if not complete, links with an individuals past and present living environment.
Psychiatric methodology is in no way pseudo-scientific, and it is not the ''modification of socially unacceptable behaviour through the metaphor of regarding the dissident mind as a physical organ in the body, which might be 'diseased'.'' If you are presented with an individual who believes themselves to be Jesus, hears voices inside and outside of the head, can see, feel, smell, and taste things that are not present, and has loosely - if not totally un - connected thoughts; or if you are presented with someone who switches from one charachter to another, depending on what situation they are in; or if you are presented with an individual who has such violent mood swing that they can feel both the happiest and worst they have ever felt in the space of a few seconds; or an individual who is in a complete state of paralysis; etc; there is no doubt that this persons brain, as an organ, is not functioning correctly.
This has led to researchers discovering major differences in the structure, composition, and fuctioning of peoples brains.
No! Psychiatrists claim to be doctors treating people who have an illness - a malfunctioning brain. And, yes, their is a massive difference between a psychiatrist and a priest. Well trained psychiatrists do no tend to treat people with medication unless it is necessary. In clients who suffer from illnesses that can be ''cured'' through cognative behavioural therapy (CBT), CBT will be the first line of treatment. If the illness persists the psychiatrist will than decide whether the individual should be treated with medication, electro convulsive therapy (ECT), or trans cranial magnetic stimulation. If an individual suffers from a condition where CBT is not appropriate, then the doctor will decide what treatment should involve, and what medication(s) should be used.
And, yes, alot of the drugs are addictive, and can have very severe side effects, but so are other drugs. For example should people in severe pain not be prescribed with morphine because it is addictive. Also, when people hear the word addictive they get the image of a junkie, when in actual fact it means people may feel dizzy and nauseous if they don't take. Doctors are usually concerned with trying to keep people on their medicines rather than off them. For example, bipolar people often stop taking their medication in order to fully experience the high of mania; or schizophrenics will stop taking their medications due to delusions.
As for what he has to say about SSRIs, I would have to agree and disagree with him. Although I feel SSRIs should be very rarely used to treat depression, what he mentions is the use of SSRI when people are misdiagnosed with unipolar depression. For example, people being thrusted into a manic episode after taking the SSRIs is because they are, in actual fact, not suffering from unipolar depression. Another problem with SSRIs is that their users are very often not told by their doctors, and fail to read the leaflet, to not drink alcohol. The consequent reactions in the body will end up in them taking an overdose of SSRIs, resulting in the psychotic episodes.
No one is denying that brians are impaired in regards to mental illness. But, what they are saying is that there is no "scientific" methedology for diagnosis.
They cover all of these subjects in Frasier. They even provide the authors works and references so, if you know them, the show is pretty intricate.
It is literally just people who have studied Jung or Freud or w/e and the necessary physiological knowledge enough to be able to recognize particular thoughts or behaviors. I think the interpretive psychologists are fairly useful if the patients can be assimilited to understanding their own behavior. Look at N. Tesla, arguably he had schizophrenia, realized it, and was able to seperate irrational (thoughts of illnes) from reality. But there is nothing set in stone of what the disease is in the brain. As far as we know it is a illness of the mind. That is why psychiatrists are useful.
Really what is scientific about a Rorschach test or a tarot reading?
It is also a fact that as the DSM has grown so has prescription rate of psychotropic medication. There is also a monetary conflict of interest in this.
More psychiatry quackery, please read Thomas Szasz and cleanse your soul...
Could you summarize him for me please.
Fuck Stephan Molyneeaux.
Any person who wishes to delve into psychologisms on the internet and not mind infulencing a large group of young people in ideological action is no better than a Pol Pot.
Not only that, he is an intellelectal ameteur hack, no better than you or I, but has aweful pretentions on some fucking "fixed idea".
But than again "intellectual rogues" are ultimately all that matter anyway, and any reaction against them is pointless.
Still though, for what ever it is worth, fuck Stephan Molyneaux
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Well the same can be said for many other physical illnesses. For example, if someone presents themselves to a GP and they complain of a tight chest, frequent episodes of wheezing and coughing, have a history of chest infections; well then the doctor will diagnose them as being asthmatic. If someone present themselves to a GP with a rash that looks like lymes disease; well than the doctor will diagnose them as having lymes disease. If someone has some sort of infection in a wound, a doctor won't usually take a swab to determine whether it is an anaerobic or aerobic infection.
So, when a patient is sent to a psychiatrist, and has loosely connected thoughts, suffers from delusions, has hallucinations, has emotional flattening, and has withdrawn socially; well then the doctor can be pretty damn sure that this person is schizophrenic. To send them off to have a brain scan would be superfluous.
As for people being diagnosed with ADHD when they are just young and immature, etc. Well, I would just say that this is a bad doctor. There are also bad physicians, however, and we have seen an increase in the number of drugs used for physical illnesses also. Does this mean that physical illness is a myth? Absolutely not. There is probably just an increase in detection.
Yes there may be some people who are misdiagnosed; but to take people quotes out of context, tell lies, and to imply that mental illness is a myth is complete bullshit.
It is literally just people who have studied Jung or Freud or w/e and the necessary physiological knowledge enough to be able to recognize particular thoughts or behaviors
Not quite. Psychiatrist must study: what is the cause, treatment, pros and cons of certain medications, etc.
Look at N. Tesla, arguably he had schizophrenia, realized it, and was able to seperate irrational (thoughts of illnes) from reality. But there is nothing set in stone of what the disease is in the brain. As far as we know it is a illness of the mind. That is why psychiatrists are useful.
Well people usually slip in and out of psychosis, and it is not uncommom for schizophrenics to realise that they are hallucinating or delusional. But studies suggest that CBT is totally unappropriate for schizophrenia, and it has had no success when tried. And researcher are fairly certain that schizophrenia is due to problems with the dopamine receptors in the brain, genetics, and a plethera of other things.
Yes, it is an illness of the mind that stems from an illness of the brain. It is a symptom of a problem. Like inflation is a symptom of printing money; schizophrenia is a symptom of neural irregularities.
But for who? Certainly not the psychiatrist. A psychiatrist would make a fortune from using CBT to treat all mental illnesses. Instead, they prescribe you a medication see you a few times until they get the dosage and drug right, and then that it. Maybe a few people might be in on a conspiracy to make money; but it certainly isn't your average psychiatrist.
Psycology is a clinical profession..Stephan Moyneaux is not a proffesional clinical therapist. Fuck his armachair psycholgy. If he cared that much about it, he would have done the work and achieved the pedegree to crtitique it in such a public fashion
For example, if someone presents themselves to a GP and they complain of a tight chest, frequent episodes of wheezing and coughing, have a history of chest infections; well then the doctor will diagnose them as being asthmatic. If someone present themselves to a GP with a rash that looks like lymes disease; well than the doctor will diagnose them as having lymes disease. If someone has some sort of infection in a wound, a doctor won't usually take a swab to determine whether it is an anaerobic or aerobic infection.
All of those things are physical and scientifically verifiable. Thus, they are irrelevant in comparison to psychological diseases.
Absurd. There is no verifiable way of determining what the hallucinations are (or if they are at all). Sending them off for a brain scan is the only way to determine if there is a physiological impairment in the brain, to which the drugs are geared.
And researcher are fairly certain that schizophrenia is due to problems with the dopamine receptors in the brain, genetics, and a plethera of other things. Yes, it is an illness of the mind that stems from an illness of the brain.
Fairly Certain. a plethora of other things.
AKA - they have no idea. I have a friend who is schizophrenic and they have had him on tons of medications. They do not know enough about the problem to precribe drugs that cure it. Same with depression and other things. ADD or depression drugs are just mind numbers. The have obvious and well documented side effects that sometimes rival the disease iteself.
But for who? Certainly not the psychiatrist. A psychiatrist would make a fortune from using CBT to treat all mental illnesses.
You seem to be confused. It is everyone involved that stands to make money off of the DSM growth and excessive prescriptions. The DSM grows because some psychiatrists think they found a few hundred new diseases, then more people will be diagnosed, therefore more patients, which will then need more prescriptions for drugs. Everyone makes more money.
You wouldn't let bankers regulate the system in which they make money...oh, wait.
Well this is exactly where Molyneux misleads people. Although mental illnesses are diagnosed subjectively; people who suffer from them are proven to have irregularities in their brains. These differences can be seen in scans.And for alot of mental illnesses their is a know etiology. Most are at least somewhat genetic, while bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have been shown to have much stronger links with genetics.
They haven't identified congenital pathology, they've identified trends of behavioural dysfunction in families. Father abuses kid, kid becomes father and abuses kid and so on. More runs in a family than blood.
Other disorders such as disasociative identity disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, seasonal affective disorder, unipolar depression, etc, have been shown to have very strong, if not complete, links with an individuals past and present living environment.
Of course an individual's behaviour is in reaction to their experiences, that's the whole point.
It is normal to respond to war with "PTSD" - it is a normal response to those experiences. Those who don't develop PTSD in combat are the crazy ones.
This is the issue - it is the environment which is "sick", metaphorically; not an organ in the traumatised person's body.
Some of those might be indicative of a neurological disorder, in which case a neurologist should be referred to for brain scans.
If someone professes to be the one and only Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, Carpenter and Registered Notary, I would perhaps enquire as to when they first began to feel that way, but I don't know that there is a brain abnormality behind their behaviour. Where's the brain scan to prove it?
Am I insane to call myself gamma_rat? I'll admit it's not my "real name", but what does that mean? Is the name my dear sweet mother calls me by my "real name"? Is the name on my state birth certificate, or church baptism certificate my "real name"? Why? Because the state/diocesan official who typed it up thought it was? I bet they didn't think very much about it.
Identity is conventional. Someone who professes to be someone other than who they 'really are' is violating an accepted social convention of identity.
There is another way in which social pressure is exerted upon people to disincentivise them from claiming to be someone other than who they really are - it is the criminal and/or civil prohibition of fraud.
You'd consider it fraud if someone claimed to be someone they weren't for a purpose you can appreciate to be malicious, such as the misappropriation of funds. Then you'd want to punish them.
Alternatively, you wouldn't consider it a problem at all if someone claimed to be someone they weren't for a purpose you don't consider to be malicious, such as an actor in a play, where there is no actual deception intended.
It's only when you cannot appreciate the purpose behind someone's actions that you brand them insane.
Speaking of Jesus, if someone claimed that they believed this guy turned water into wine, walked on water, multiplied loaves and fishes, brought someone back from the dead, and was crucified before rising from the dead himself after three days, and so now two-thousand years later they worship him as the divine Son of God, they eat wafers and drink wine which they claim to be his FLESH AND BLOOD, and they speak to him as if they were hearing his long-dead voice in their head, and he were hearing theirs, would none of this be any stranger than the shit you've described?!
No, because none of that is considered socially unconventional.
I don't know what your understanding of "well trained" is, but those psychiatrists who have been "well trained" by the pharmeceutical industry know which side their bread is buttered.
What lesion is being treated when 400 volts is sent through the brain? What problem in the brain is being fixed, and how? How do you know it's fixed?
They are changing behaviour with 400 volts through the brain, not treating an illness.
And, yes, alot of the drugs are addictive, and can have very severe side effects, but so are other drugs. For example should people in severe pain not be prescribed with morphine because it is addictive.
If you don't know what the lesion is, it's like using morphine to 'treat' the pain caused by a broken limb without setting the bone.
Also, when people hear the word addictive they get the image of a junkie, when in actual fact it means people may feel dizzy and nauseous if they don't take.
Or they might kill themselves. You're talking about withdrawal from a drug that takes all the emotional pain away, one way or another. Stop taking it, and it all comes back, along with the physical symptoms of withdrawal. Anti-depressants do not cure depression; they distort your ability to feel emotions while you are on them.
I'm not saying that it's never beneficial to take mind-altering drugs, but in the context of psychiatry it is chemical behaviour modification; not the treatment of illness. The patient is judged to be recovering when their behaviour changes to suit that desired by the psychiatrist.
Okay then some with the symptoms of a bladder infection, etc.
You're right to an extent. If someone is just having hallucinations without other symptoms they would be sent off for a scan. But thats because there is not enough evidence to have them diagnosed. They may have a tumour, parkinson's, etc. But that's why there are certain criteria which must be filled. Why spend so much time and money on having a scan when it is not necessary. If they are wrongly diagnosed the medication will have very specific side effects. For example if some is bipolar and are given SSRIs they may become manic, hypomanic, or go into a mixed state. If someone is not psychotic and they are given antipsychotic, they will develop a tremor. These occurences are extremely rare though and whenever it does happen the doctor is usually to blame for not sticking to the criteria and not looking for other symptoms of other similar illnesses.
Well I am schizophrenic and bipolar. And yes the medications have very bad side effects and I'm still working with doctors to get them right. But I take these drugs optionally and I prefer them than my illness. I lost 60lbs, was afraid to eat or drink because I thought people were trying to poisen me, dropped out of college, spent €2000 on horses after spending the whole summer saving it for college, went 5 night without any sleep, had the worst depression immaginable, couldn't communicate because I couldn't concentrate long enough to remember what I was talking about to finish a sentence, saw people face morph into demons telling that they would kill me, and hearing people talking and even whole concerts in my head.
They have a good idea. The problem is that they do not know the exact level of the chemical imbalance in each particular person. If he didn't want the medicine he didn't have to take it. Depression should only be treated with medication if cognitive therapy is unaffective. But again people choose to take these drugs while aware of the side effects. Because the side effect of not taking them is worse. And I realise that I will continue throughout my life to suffer psychotic, manic, and depressive episodes - although fewer and milder - because the medicine is not perfect because they have alot to learn. But because some things are still unknown and are anomolies does not mean that you label it a pseudo science and a myth.
Name me these ''few hundred new diseases'' please. Maybe some people who slipped under the radar in the past are now getting help due to increased awareness. For example, how many people knew about illnesses such bipolar disorder 50 years back, and how maany were just written off as alcoholics. And not everyone is as evil as you seem to think. And it is not as easy as making up an illness to get the DSM to recognise it.
That was a slight exaggeration. But, autism. How many different "kinds" of autism do they pretend that there are? They know next to nothing about any of them. The definition is so broad that they cannot come to any conclusions other than to pacify the patients that they think have it. Then, they make relatively quarulent reasons for differentiation. Doing this, creates a new category for drugs, but, again, the drugs are not made for the specific brain problems, they are to alter what the doctors think is wrong.
No, they noticed that someone in the 1800s who was always considered normal had lots of friends, and then for no apparent reason in his late teens began acting extremely strange and then killed himself. Then this man nephew did the same thing. And this mans so daughter then did the same thing. Then this womans cousin did the same thing, ect.
It was my point not yours. This was where the etiology came in.
Wrong! PTSD is only a problem when people are thrown into the deep end. If people are slowly introduced to war they gennerally don't suffer from PTSD. And the fact is that we know PTSD exist, and how it develops, and how to treat it, lets us know that it is not a myth or a pseudo science used to treat it.
No its not. We know that in certain mental illnesses the environment causes the problem and creates changes within the brain. With these illnesses we use CBT to treat them. In order illnesses there is much less evidence for this and much less evidence to suggest CBT is effective.
But much more often it is indicative of a mental disorder. It is extremely common for schizophrenics to believes themselves to be famous people. It is one of a long list of symptoms which are so unique that there is no need for a brain scan which can only show very subtle differences.
What the hell do you think psychiatrists do? Just that, along with searches for dozens of other symptoms without you realising what they are doing. The brain scan to prove it is in the university hospitals where they find they differences in brain structures. What else would cause someone to genuinely believe that they are Jesus that a brain abnormality.
Face palm. No, I considered someone insane if they believes they are someone else because it is delusional, which is by definition insane. Speaking of Jesus, I believe he and most prophets suffered from schizophrenia. Talking to a bush that is on fire and hearing ''God'' talk to you sounds alot like schizophrenia to me. Along with the social withdrawal to the desert and cave in the mountains. And I do believe that anyone who believes in organised religion is not insane but an idiot. They have identified a gene that causes certain people to believe in god. So maybe they are insane but as long as it does not affect their life in a major way I don't see it as a problem that needs to be treated.
But yes people who believe in organised religion are in my opinion idiots. Especially since most of them make fun of religions such as Scientology and Mormonism as being stupid.
A decade of training seems fairly well trained to me. And they have usually been trained by the state. And their clients pay them their salary, so yeah, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If I hear of a great psychiatrist I will switch to him. If I hear of an idiot psychiatrist who just drugs people up then I won't go to him. And I have in fact been through three.
The convulsion lead to new synapses being created, which can help with sleep deprivation and depression. This has one of the highest success rates for treating depression at around 70%. You know its fixed because brain scans reveal it and patients claim it. The only common side effect related to it is short term memmory loss and drowsiness.
Well you can go on continuing in pain if you want, but what's the point. And depression is pain on an unimaginable scale. I don't know of any other pains which make people take their own lifes to make it stop.
You're talking about withdrawal from a drug that takes all the emotional pain away, one way or another. Stop taking it, and it all comes back, along with the physical symptoms of withdrawal. Anti-depressants do not cure depression; they distort your ability to feel emotions while you are on them.
Are you speaking from first hand experience? It doesn't sound like it. Depression distorts your ability to feel emotions. Depression prevents you from feeling anything. People mistake depression with sadness, when it is actually further away from sadness as happiness is as an emotion. Depression is realising that you are in a situation which you should be enjoying but not. Depression is crying uncontrollably without reason. I was on antidepressants and I could feel lots of emotion.
What do you think CBT is. The patient is judged to be recovered when the patient feels recovered and the psychiatrist agrees.
Well I know next to nothing about Autism but it without a doubt exist. All I know is from what I have seen and it does seem to vary widely in how it effects people. But without knowing anything about it I will refrain from commenting further.
Thomas Szasz's manifesto, from his website.
Original Essay which led to Szasz's best known book, "The Myth of Mental Illness"
The Myth of Mental Illness
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, probably his second best book, IMO
Szasz is not the only psychiatrist who thinks along these lines, but he is the most firmly entrenched in his position. Keep in mind that Szasz was among the first, if not the first psychiatrist to suggest that homosexuality was not a mental illness.
I've just read some of his manifesto, and it is enough.
Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word "disease" denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term "mental illness" refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish.
He is confusing symptoms with the actual disease.
The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.
Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness. Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness? If so that really say everything you need to know about him.
If we recognize that "mental illness" is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior
I think its a bit of a simplification to describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours. Is this how you would describe catatonia?
Hence, like Church and State, Psychiatry and the State ought to be separated by a "wall." At the same time, the State ought not to interfere with mental health practices between consenting adults. The role of psychiatrists and mental health experts with regard to law, the school system, and other organizations ought to be similar to the role of clergymen in those situations.
Does this not describe the current situation.
Because being accused of mental illness is similar to being accused of crime, we ought to presume that psychiatric "defendants" are mentally competent, just as we presume that criminal defendants are legally innocent. Individuals charged with criminal, civil, or interpersonal offenses ought never to be treated as incompetent solely on the basis of the opinion of mental health experts. Incompetence ought to be a judicial determination and the "accused" ought to have access to legal representation and a right to trial by jury.
I agree with him somewhat here, in that psychiatrist may be able to abuse their powers. But it is not as simple as described. Firs of all, doctors are told everything in complete confidentiality, and are only allowed to break that confidentiality if a court orders them to, or the person is thought to be an imminant danger to either themselves or others. Even then, for the persons to be committed they have to be asessed by other psychhiatrists.
Involuntary mental hospitalization is imprisonment under the guise of treatment; it is a covert form of social control that subverts the rule of law. No one ought to be deprived of liberty except for a criminal offense, after a trial by jury guided by legal rules of evidence. No one ought to be detained against his will in a building called "hospital," or in any other medical institution, or on the basis of expert opinion. Medicine ought to be clearly distinguished and separated from penology, treatment from punishment, the hospital from the prison. No person ought to be detained involuntarily for a purpose other than punishment or in an institution other than one formally defined as a part of the state's criminal justice system.
Again, therre is a need for some balance. If someone claims to be feeling homicidal, should they just be left to wonder the street with these feelings.
Insanity is a legal concept involving the courtroom determination that a person is not capable of forming conscious intent and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for an otherwise criminal act. The opinions of experts about the "mental state" of defendants ought to be inadmissible in court, exactly as the opinions of experts about the "religious state" of defendants are inadmissible. No one ought to be excused of lawbreaking or any other offense on the basis of so-called expert opinion rendered by psychiatric or mental health experts. Excusing a person of responsibility for an otherwise criminal act on the basis of inability to form conscious intent is an act of legal mercy masquerading as an act of medical science. Being merciful or merciless toward lawbreakers is a moral and legal matter, unrelated to the actual or alleged expertise of medical and mental health professionals.
I agree. The jury should be let decide once they hear some mental professionals give their diagnoses.
Szasz is not the only psychiatrist who thinks along these lines, but he is the most firmly entrenched in his position.
Rothbard mentions Szasz in Ethics of Liberty (or For a New Liberty, I cannot remember). He is a libertarian psychologist.
Honorable mention..."Victor Szasz, from BATMAN!"
Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word "disease" denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term "mental illness" refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish. He is confusing symptoms with the actual disease.
No he is not mixing anything up.
"disease" denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms"
is true.
"The term "mental illness" refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish."
I cannot make it clearer than that. You are just denying its truth.
The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment. Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness. Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness? If so that really say everything you need to know about him.
Well, again, he is right. You might not like that fact, but it is undeniable that the State uses mental illness as an excuse for culling society.
A Century of Eugenics in America - Explains the history of government using "feeblemindedness", among other things, as an excuse to confine and/or sterilize people. Lobotomies were also used for a short period. Pills give people the same result as lobotomies today. So, the older cruder method has been abandonded.
Intended Consequences - How the government uses "family planning" as cover for eugenics and depopulation. In first and third world countries the government has planned against making people better from their illnesses.
Mental illness has its own special place in the heart of the public health theoriticians.
My mom works for a hospital investigating possible malpractice cuits and she has told me tales about people who will come in sick with some diesase, they will be given a room and treated and when their symptoms go away, they go home! The catch is, if they show up again with that same disease or problem and it is determined to be too expensive to treat the pereson, they are given synthetic morphine and told to go back home...
That is (part of) the new public health model.
If we recognize that "mental illness" is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior I think its a bit of a simplification to describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours. Is this how you would describe catatonia?
"While catatonia is only identified as a symptom of schizophrenia in present psychiatric classifications, it is increasingly recognized as a syndrome with many faces. It appears as the Kahlbaum syndrome (retarded catatonia), malignant catatonia (neuroleptic malignant syndrome, toxic serotonin syndrome), and excited forms (delirious mania, catatonic excitement, oneirophrenia).[6] It has also been recognized as grafted on to autism spectrum disorders.[7]"
Once again, please stop refusing to admit this, the lack of physiological, documentable, scientific evidence of 'mental illness' prevents it from being defined as a disease. Here is the 'diagnosis creteria'.
Treatment: "Benzodiazepines enhance the effect of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which results in sedative, hypnotic (sleep-inducing), anxiolytic (anti-anxiety), anticonvulsant, muscle relaxant and amnesic action.[2] These properties make benzodiazepines useful in treating anxiety, insomnia, agitation, seizures, muscle spasms, alcohol withdrawal and as a premedication for medical or dental procedures.[3] Benzodiazepines are categorized as either short-, intermediate- or long-acting. Short- and intermediate-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of insomnia; longer-acting benzodiazepines are recommended for the treatment of anxiety.[4]"
As you can see, they aren't even trying to cure it. They are trying to make it so the patients are not a hassle in the world.
They even refer to catatonia as being in the same spectrum as autism. They know next to nothing about it other than the symptoms and the arbitrary methods of physiological treatment they have come up with.
Vlad, Szasz has probably been practicing psychiatry longer than you've been alive; his breadth of knowledge (both practical and historical) on the subject over that 60 year span is well-established. Your attempts to counter him with cutesy pop psychology based on a (partial) reading of his manifesto are as unpersuasive as they are unimpressive. Suffice it to say, you won't be changing my mind on anything.
Rothbard mentions Szasz in Ethics of Liberty (or For a New Liberty, I cannot remember).
You might be surprised to know that Rothbard was initially very cautious of Szasz. Not to drop another book, but if you want to see him critique historical figures at will (including Mises and Hayek), check out Faith in Freedom: Libertarian Principles and Psychiatric Practices.
myhumangetsme, I have dealt with dozens of psychiatrists, and have even been a subject in studies. When I first became ill, I did a little research and was very much of a similar opinion to yourself. However it wasn't very long untill I encountered the other side of the argument. But rather than hearing ad hominem arguments, like your own, I actually heard real one based on facts. Your, and Szasz's argument don't hold up to scrutiny or facts. They lie contrary to all the evidence we have on mental illness, as well as the vast majority of mental health professionals. Suffice it to say, you won't be changing my mind on anything.
I have dealt with dozens of psychiatrists...
Oh well that totally trumps the life's work of a respected psychiatrist. What was I thinking?
...and have even been a subject in studies. When I first became ill...
So because you have just as much at stake in believing in your "mental illness" exists as your doctors do, that makes it true? Just another true believer...
What I was trying to say is that not one of them held the same view as Szaz.
How do I have anything at stake. I was sent to doctors for having delusions and hallucinations. It is, quite frankly, retarded to believe that hallucinations, delusions, stupor, etc., are caused by anything other than disease in the brain. In fact, most of the are symptoms to illnesses that are entirely physical.
Thurs. 12/04/05 13:43 EDT.post #123 Vladimir Ulyanov:He is confusing symptoms with the actual disease.The opposite.Szasz is saying that symptoms are not disease.Symptoms are the patient's complaints; they are only indications of disease (see, for example, symptom). Disease itself is, as Szasz says, is "... a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans)."But since in "mental illness" there is no "demonstrable biological process," there are only symptoms, and calling a symptom "a disease" is a logical and semantic error. Vladimir Ulyanov:Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness.You are objecting to something Szasz doesn't say.Szasz doesn't say "social dissent has been confused with mental illness." Vladimir Ulyanov:Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness?Szasz doesn't deny the existence of strange or unpopular behavior.Szasz does affirm that calling behavior "disease" is a logical and semantic error. Vladimir Ulyanov:I think its a bit of a simplification to describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours.Again, you objecting to something Szasz does not say.Szasz does not "describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours."Szasz recognizes that what is called "mental illness" "... is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,..." Vladimir Ulyanov:Is this how you would describe catatonia?That would seem to be the case:
Vladimir Ulyanov:He is confusing symptoms with the actual disease.
Vladimir Ulyanov:Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness.
Vladimir Ulyanov:Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness?
Vladimir Ulyanov:I think its a bit of a simplification to describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours.
Vladimir Ulyanov:Is this how you would describe catatonia?
a syndrome seen most frequently in schizophrenia, characterized by muscular rigidity and mental stupor, sometimes alternating with great excitement and confusion.
Vladimir Ulyanov:Does this not describe the current situation.
Vladimir Ulyanov:I agree with him somewhat here, in that psychiatrist may be able to abuse their powers.
Vladimir Ulyanov:Again, therre is a need for some balance.
Vladimir Ulyanov:If someone claims to be feeling homicidal, should they just be left to wonder the street with these feelings.
Vladimir Ulyanov:I agree. The jury should be let decide once they hear some mental professionals give their diagnoses.
There is a free book in PDF on this site called "Psychiatry and Responsibility" by Helmut Schoeck. One of the things he talks about is the influence of communists on the tenets of the profession. Basically, he shows that there was a paradigm shift and from the top down psychiatry became a front for thought control and the attempt to manufacture a new kind of person that fits the program, a sort of throwback to the "new socialist man" idea. A reasonable person might be tempted to think of it in terms of scientific value. But, "psychiatry" is not a title under which I would expect anything reasonable to emerge.
The principle of medicine is that people have "dis-ease", which means that a person is unhappy with a feeling, and the physician's job is to reduce that feeling. The new international principle of psychiatry is to tell people that they have a disease, which causes the psychiatrist an unhappy feeling, and the psychiatrist's job is to reduce his own unhappiness by changing people.
I suffer from depression and anxiety, and I can tell you for sure its real and its biological. The brain is an organ just like any other, and it can disfunction as any other.
I think forced hospitalization is fine as long as the person has agreed to it beforehand. For example I can carry a document in my purse that says that if I were to be found insane by some specific standard I agree to be hospitalzied even by force by such and such people.
Psychiatry and Responsibility
Although mental illnesses are diagnosed subjectively; people who suffer from them are proven to have irregularities in their brains.
Being libertarian is irregular, which automatically implies an irregularity in the brain. It is still subjective that this irregularity is an illness. In the real world people are forced into treatments based on the unilateral decision that they have a mental illness. That's where the cases like mass ritalyn use come in. Another example, I knew someone that was ordered onto medication for giving false testimony in court.
The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment. Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness. Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness?
Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness. Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness?
Since a very long time ago. The WHO and World Federation for Mental Health held conferences straight up pitching the doctrine that mental health is dependent on having their approved social system, involving total control over life, which you can see in "Mental Health and World Citizenship". The existence of mental illness is not even relevent. What matters is that psychiatry hijacked mental illness and turned it into a weapon. The writings of Szasz are very relevent to the events of the time of his writings.
Seasonal affective disorder is attributed to elevated melatonin and depressed serotonin (from which melatonin is synthesized). The hypothesis of low serotonin being the cause of depression is more or less disproven. All it means when journalists say that A is "linked" to B is that A and B have circumstantial correlation, which pretty much means squat in the context of the complex biochemistry of the human body. This might not be pertinent to the question of psychiatry, but I thought I should mention it.
Tues. 12/04/10 21:15 EDT.post #129 Caley McKibbin:Being libertarian is irregular, which automatically implies an irregularity in the brain.Is this true, though? Is it true that irregular behavior "automatically implies an irregularity in the brain"? What does "an irregularity in the brain" even mean, if anything?For example, Ron Paul is a libertarian, which you might call "irregular." But, he's also Christian, heterosexual, married with kids, gainfully employed, a Buick owner...in other words, a great deal of his behavior is "regular." So how could one meaningfully speak of an "irregularity in (his) brain"?What about this hypothetical:Suppose that, in twenty years, libertarianism becomes so widely adopted that it constitutes the dominant ideology. Would it make any sense to say that "irregularities in the brain" just disappear once enough brains become "irregular"?
Caley McKibbin:Being libertarian is irregular, which automatically implies an irregularity in the brain.
Tues. 12/04/10 21:59 EDT.post #130 Malachi:In order to label anyone as "mentally ill" or otherwise deficient, one must construct an ideal human for means of comparison.Funny how the "ideal human" is whatever a person called a "psychiatrist" says it is.
Malachi:In order to label anyone as "mentally ill" or otherwise deficient, one must construct an ideal human for means of comparison.
Funny how the "ideal human" is whatever a person called a "psychiatrist" says it is.
That is why good psychiatrists use inward looking techniques (like Rorschach or tarot a la Carl Jung) and not psychotropic drugs and electric shocks. Alchemy comes from what you think the ideal you is. There is a lot more to it, involving Plato's conception of the soul and the three base metals, but you can look into it yourself if you care at all.
I'm a huge fan of Szasz. He doesn't say the metaphor 'mental illness' doesn't exist, he says human suffering is often referred to metaphorically. What ever the cause of the person's suffering, it should be up to the person to find out ... and any help received, by implication, is not forced upon them but provided with their consent.
It will take courage for many to confront what Szasz is saying because it means re-examining the basis upon which one's problems rest. Just that act, alone, can require a lot of courage because nobody likes to have to consider the possibility they missed something - especially where people's lives and livelihoods were at stake.
MMMark, you put forth very solid reasoning.... more power to you and your keyboard.
I want to tell you all that your opinions are wrong. They deviate from my norm.
I can't explain to you how they are wrong, or why they are wrong, only what I think is wrong.
So if you would like, I will give you some medicine and make some of the wrong go away. That way you can fit my norm better.
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.” ― Frank Zappa
Wed. 12/04/11 16:52 EDT.post #132 Aristophanes:That is why good psychiatrists use inward looking techniques (like Rorschach or tarot a la Carl Jung) and not psychotropic drugs and electric shocks.I'm not opposed to either "inward looking techiques" or the administration of drugs or shocks, as long as both reception of and payment for the "treatment" is voluntary.What concerns me is the concept of the "ideal human." It raises the question of who decides, and more ominously, "what is to be done, by whom, and to whom?" Inevitably, the "non-ideal" humans aren't too eager to go along with "the plan," hence, the "need" for a bit of "persuasion."Consider this paragraph from page 101 of Fatal Freedom (my emphasis):
Aristophanes:That is why good psychiatrists use inward looking techniques (like Rorschach or tarot a la Carl Jung) and not psychotropic drugs and electric shocks.
Grotesquely, the Nazi physicians were eager to prevent the "abuses" of the euthanasia program, by which they meant the practice of "therapeutic mercy killing" by nonmedical personnel. Karl Brandt stressed that "gassing should only be done by physicians." The program was regulated "according to the motto: 'The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor.' "61 Between 1939 and 1941, more than 70,000 patients in German mental hospitals had been gassed and cremated. The decision about who deserved euthanasia was "made by psychiatric consultants, most of whom were professors in key universities."6261. R. Proctor, Racial Hygiene, pp. 190, 193.62. J.A. Barondess, "Medicine Against Society: Lessons from the Third Reich," JAMA 276 (27 November 1996): 1657-61.
jimaustri123:MMMark, you put forth very solid reasoning.... more power to you and your keyboard.
Wed. 12/04/11 18:54 EDT.post #135I want to amend a poorly-worded sentence I wrote in this post.I wrote:
Szasz recognizes that what is called "mental illness" "... is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,..."
Szasz recognizes that the expression "mental illness" "... is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,..."
The term "mental illness" refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons.