 | |||
| Washington State Capitol |
I write about my son's case in specific with the intent of bringing attention to the the larger issue of psychiatric mistreatment and psychiatric oppression; because they are Human Rights crimes that destroy lives all over the globe. My son is one of far too many victims who have been abused and used in drug trials. My son was, in effect, tortured for the majority of his childhood by psychiatrists who used drugs "off-label." Ultimately, my son was used as a guinea pig without consent in Federally-funded drug trials at the state-run psychiatric facility for children by the Medical Director of the facility, Jon McClellan, one of the investigators in the TEOSS drug trials.
via Psychiatric Times:
Some Concerns Regarding Diagnosis
By Joseph Friedman, PhD, and Robert E. Kay, MD | October 21, 2011
Dr Friedman is a clinical psychologist with 50-plus years of experience. He has worked in military and private psychiatric hospitals, and outpatient clinics. Formerly, he was Adjunct Assistant Professor at Temple University, lecturer at St. Joseph’s University and Special Lecturer, and Senior Clinician at University of Pennsylvania Medical School. Dr Kay is a retired psychiatrist who worked with both adults and children in various outpatient and inpatient settings, mostly as part of the community health system in Philadelphia.
The mental health professions are currently awaiting the American Psychiatric Association’s newest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The need for a fifth revision underscores the lack of satisfaction within the professions with our diagnostic schema. In this article we address several issues that have troubled us in the past versions and seem likely to do so in the forthcoming edition.
In modern medicine, there has been what is labeled as the laboratory revolution.1 This stresses that verifiable biologic and chemical finds in the laboratory contribute greatly to diagnosis and treatment.
However, it is abundantly clear that no such markers exist in the sphere of emotional disorders.2,3
My hopeful prayer is to:
The article in the Psychiatric Times, "Some Concerns Regarding Diagnosis" very succinctly states concerns about validity and reliability of psychiatric diagnosis which should alarm anyone who has a conscience. I am biased; biased by my horrifying experiences parenting a child with emotional and behavioral issues and seeking help for the complex PTSD he had after being traumatized by violent crime when he was three. At age seven, he was diagnosed with Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is one of the neurological conditions which can be mistaken for schizophrenia; it is thought to be the result of brain injury.
Ultimately, the 'mental health care' he received from six years of age to his present age of twenty-three, has never addressed his initial trauma. The fact is, not only was his initial trauma ignored, the so-called 'professionals' refuse to acknowledge it, much less the traumatic effects of the 'treatment,' i.e. psychiatric drugs, which have NEVER helped. Professionals who are his current "treatment providers" refuse to even acknowledge the harm caused by the callous disregard shown to my son; apparently, believing he has some disease or defect makes this abusive attitude justifiable. I still cannot fathom the twisted logic of blaming a victim for the harm caused from being victimized. It has long been my perception that many 'professionals' blamed and shamed my son for the behaviors and emotional difficulties he had no control over, and did not understand. His symptoms were treated as if the BELIEF that the symptoms were the result of a disease or defect, was a medical reality---so apparently his severe PTSD had nothing to do with getting beat up and locked in a closet...or the subsequent traumas inflicted by 'professionals.'
Based on this belief, the State of Washington's employees and contracted 'service providers' repeatedly traumatized, stigmatized and discriminated against my son for the effects of being severely traumatized by violent abuse in Foster Care; and repeatedly retraumatized him with callous disregard in the manner the State provided, 'mental health and social services.' The initial traumatic abuse in foster care was an obvious case in which the Child Welfare system was negligent. In an attempt to cover up this crime; State employees committed further crimes.
The State of Washington has continuously committed Medicaid fraud for over 17 years in my son's case; including using my son as research fodder in the State-run psychiatric facility for children without Informed Consent. My son is handicapped as a result. The State of Washington allowed a State employee to give my son massive amounts of dangerous drugs not FDA approved or even tested on children. Worse there is no concern that the doctor who did this is still in a position to harm other children. There is no interest in holding him accountable for the crimes he committed as an agent of the State of Washington, when he drugged my son into a state of profound disability, Under Color of Law. The State of Washington is not interested in complying with Federal Medicaid Law; or in preventing fraudulent claims from being submitted; and continues to commit Medicaid fraud to this day in my son's case.
In providing my son's 'mental health care' State, Federal and International Laws were violated: The State of Washington repeatedly violated my rights as a parent, and my son's Human Rights by allowing fraud, perjury, assault, cruel and unusual punishment, undue restraint, and loss of Liberty without Substantive or Procedural Due Process of Law. At one point, as a teenager, my son was held in a locked facility for close to two years with the facility telling one County's Superior Court he no longer needed to be there; while obtaining a Court Order in another county for Involuntary Commitment. It is my belief the Involuntary Commitment court order was obtained to prevent me from rescuing him, as I had suggested I would.
Not once has a crime that I have reported to appropriate State authorities been investigated by Law Enforcement. What seems to matter to child and adult protective services is protecting the State of Washington; and maintaining control over individuals once a psychiatric diagnosis is attached. The actual effects of treatment, even if lacking any benefit to the patient, is never as important as maintaining 'treatment compliance' through any means necessary. The patient's outcome is never as important as the maintenance of State-Sanctioned, psychiatric authority and control; it is the primary goal and the purpose of Washington State's public Mental Health system.
Some Concerns Regarding Diagnosis
By Joseph Friedman, PhD, and Robert E. Kay, MD | October 21, 2011
Dr Friedman is a clinical psychologist with 50-plus years of experience. He has worked in military and private psychiatric hospitals, and outpatient clinics. Formerly, he was Adjunct Assistant Professor at Temple University, lecturer at St. Joseph’s University and Special Lecturer, and Senior Clinician at University of Pennsylvania Medical School. Dr Kay is a retired psychiatrist who worked with both adults and children in various outpatient and inpatient settings, mostly as part of the community health system in Philadelphia.
The mental health professions are currently awaiting the American Psychiatric Association’s newest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The need for a fifth revision underscores the lack of satisfaction within the professions with our diagnostic schema. In this article we address several issues that have troubled us in the past versions and seem likely to do so in the forthcoming edition.
In modern medicine, there has been what is labeled as the laboratory revolution.1 This stresses that verifiable biologic and chemical finds in the laboratory contribute greatly to diagnosis and treatment.
However, it is abundantly clear that no such markers exist in the sphere of emotional disorders.2,3
My hopeful prayer is to:
The article in the Psychiatric Times, "Some Concerns Regarding Diagnosis" very succinctly states concerns about validity and reliability of psychiatric diagnosis which should alarm anyone who has a conscience. I am biased; biased by my horrifying experiences parenting a child with emotional and behavioral issues and seeking help for the complex PTSD he had after being traumatized by violent crime when he was three. At age seven, he was diagnosed with Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is one of the neurological conditions which can be mistaken for schizophrenia; it is thought to be the result of brain injury.
Ultimately, the 'mental health care' he received from six years of age to his present age of twenty-three, has never addressed his initial trauma. The fact is, not only was his initial trauma ignored, the so-called 'professionals' refuse to acknowledge it, much less the traumatic effects of the 'treatment,' i.e. psychiatric drugs, which have NEVER helped. Professionals who are his current "treatment providers" refuse to even acknowledge the harm caused by the callous disregard shown to my son; apparently, believing he has some disease or defect makes this abusive attitude justifiable. I still cannot fathom the twisted logic of blaming a victim for the harm caused from being victimized. It has long been my perception that many 'professionals' blamed and shamed my son for the behaviors and emotional difficulties he had no control over, and did not understand. His symptoms were treated as if the BELIEF that the symptoms were the result of a disease or defect, was a medical reality---so apparently his severe PTSD had nothing to do with getting beat up and locked in a closet...or the subsequent traumas inflicted by 'professionals.'
Based on this belief, the State of Washington's employees and contracted 'service providers' repeatedly traumatized, stigmatized and discriminated against my son for the effects of being severely traumatized by violent abuse in Foster Care; and repeatedly retraumatized him with callous disregard in the manner the State provided, 'mental health and social services.' The initial traumatic abuse in foster care was an obvious case in which the Child Welfare system was negligent. In an attempt to cover up this crime; State employees committed further crimes.
The State of Washington has continuously committed Medicaid fraud for over 17 years in my son's case; including using my son as research fodder in the State-run psychiatric facility for children without Informed Consent. My son is handicapped as a result. The State of Washington allowed a State employee to give my son massive amounts of dangerous drugs not FDA approved or even tested on children. Worse there is no concern that the doctor who did this is still in a position to harm other children. There is no interest in holding him accountable for the crimes he committed as an agent of the State of Washington, when he drugged my son into a state of profound disability, Under Color of Law. The State of Washington is not interested in complying with Federal Medicaid Law; or in preventing fraudulent claims from being submitted; and continues to commit Medicaid fraud to this day in my son's case.
In providing my son's 'mental health care' State, Federal and International Laws were violated: The State of Washington repeatedly violated my rights as a parent, and my son's Human Rights by allowing fraud, perjury, assault, cruel and unusual punishment, undue restraint, and loss of Liberty without Substantive or Procedural Due Process of Law. At one point, as a teenager, my son was held in a locked facility for close to two years with the facility telling one County's Superior Court he no longer needed to be there; while obtaining a Court Order in another county for Involuntary Commitment. It is my belief the Involuntary Commitment court order was obtained to prevent me from rescuing him, as I had suggested I would.
Not once has a crime that I have reported to appropriate State authorities been investigated by Law Enforcement. What seems to matter to child and adult protective services is protecting the State of Washington; and maintaining control over individuals once a psychiatric diagnosis is attached. The actual effects of treatment, even if lacking any benefit to the patient, is never as important as maintaining 'treatment compliance' through any means necessary. The patient's outcome is never as important as the maintenance of State-Sanctioned, psychiatric authority and control; it is the primary goal and the purpose of Washington State's public Mental Health system.
And that is why in Washington State my son can be ordered by a Court of Law to take drugs that have caused him illness and serious disability----NOT because they are effective or safe, not because they are of therapeutic value, and/or that the drugs 'help' him. He can be, and has been Court Ordered to take teratogenic drugs, "to maintain the ethical integrity of the medical profession." Psychiatric diagnosis and authority is not to be questioned. Last summer, the psychiatrist who sought the order and cited the aforementioned reason the order was necessary, showed no professional or ethical integrity in the 'care' he provided my son. He even put false information in my son's medical record--another crime. This psychiatrist and another 'designated mental health professional' committed felony perjury and forgery, to obtain the Court Order.
If the criminal mistreatment and repeated victimization of my traumatized son is not evidence that the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric conditions have nothing to do with the patient's needs or the outcome for the patient; I don't know what does. Seems to me the fact that all of the crimes committed in my son's case were committed Under Color of Law, and have yet to be investigated by Law Enforcement or prosecuted; should cause a hell of a lot more than 'concern.' But like I said, I am biased.
The rest of the Psychiatic Times article in it's entirety:
"Lacking such markers, past diagnostic manuals have consisted of lists of symptoms grouped into syndromes with the groupings done by committees that were far from unanimous. In past editions, diagnoses have been shifted from one axis to another and definitions have changed. Therefore, there is good reason to question the validity and reliability of the resultant coding.
Specific diagnostic codes imply that these are discrete and separate entities. In practice, the boundaries are fuzzy and allow for much overlap and results in the listing of comorbid conditions. In physical medicine, comorbidity refers to conditions (diseases) existing at the same time but that are independent of the primary diagnosis.
Consider a patient presenting with strong compulsive behaviors who periodically experiences marked anxiety and bouts of depression. Most clinicians, even of differing theoretical orientation, would consider these to be intimately related. In the mental health field, comorbidity does not mean discrete separate issues but is a way of including mention of related aspects of the patient’s distress. Some view comorbidity as an artifact of the diagnostic system.4
A third troubling issue is what we describe as fluidity. People change over time in their modes of adaptation. A diagnosis is akin to a photograph. It may be accurate but it is also static. The very next frame would show a somewhat different picture. It is not uncommon to consult with a patient who has seen other therapists. The patient may currently show all the requirements for a diagnosis of depression. A report from the first practitioner offered the diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder.
It is not usually a matter of one professional or another being right or wrong. Possibly both correctly categorized the patient as he/she was at that time. Presenting symptoms often change over time as part of the patient’s continuing efforts at adaptation and defense.
Concerns about the variability (weak reliability) and essential validity have inclined some to favor abandoning the concept of diagnosis. But, to be replaced with what? It is on this issue that the current authors differ. One of us (J.F.) believes that even with these constraints, diagnoses have utility. They enable practitioners to communicate some shared ideas about patients. They are used in research and in relation to insurers and governmental agencies. The task is to refine our schemes.
While a complete explication of the etiology of emotional disorders seems quite distant, it remains a worthy goal. As the professions make progress toward understanding the genetic predispositions and the impact of psychological trauma at various developmental stages, it might be possible to conceive of a more tailored therapy for these disorders. One such effort is the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual.5 Similar efforts from other viewpoints6 might provide commonalities upon which to build a richer diagnostic approach.
The other of us (R.E.K.) feels that while diagnoses have utility, there will probably never be clear “markers” as found in general medicine and that the idea of “chemical imbalances” or “neurotransmitter problems” is highly speculative.7,8 The mental health field establishes so-called diseases out of patient behavior and reports; both are prone to conscious and unconscious distortions. Thus, it would be better to give on establishing etiology and deal with what the patient presents.
We reunite on the important notion that the combination of psychotherapy, carefully used medication, and environmental manipulation stands a very good chance of helping people (not disease entities) lead more satisfying and effective lives.
References
1. Cunningham A, Williams P (Eds). The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
2. Kendall R, Jablensky A. distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnosis. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:4-12.
3. Sobo S. A Reevaluation of the Relationship Between Psychiatric Diagnoses and Chemical Imbalance. 1999 Grand Rounds of University of Alabama Medical School.
4. Maj M. Psychiatric comorbidity: an artifact of current diagnostic systems. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;186:182-184.
5. Greenspan SI (Chair). Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual. Silver Springs, Md; Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations: 2006.
6. Oken D. Multiaxial diagnosis in the psychosomatic model of disease. Psychosom Med. 2000;62:171-175.
7. Kirsch I. The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Anti-Depressant Myth. Philadelphia: Basic Books; 2010.
8. Angell M. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It. New York: Random House; 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment