FIRST DO NO HARM
Hippocrates
via Mad in America:The Taint of Eugenics in NIMH-Funded Research Today November 25, 2011 by Robert Whitaker
an excerpt:
"Today, as a society, we would never conclude that we hold “eugenic” ideas about the “mentally ill.” Eugenics became a discredited science at the end of World War II, when it became evident that Hitler had risen to power on a eugenics agenda, and that this grading of humans—into the fit and unfit—had led to the Holocaust. Yet, it is easy to see today that our modern research agenda encourages eugenic conceptions of the mentally ill and encourages the adoption of policies that rob people so diagnosed of their basic rights." read here
via FearLoathingBTX: January 24, 2011 Posted by Carl :
"Harriet Washington explains how the United States is failing to protect research subjects."
I realized years ago the truth stated in the above sentence. My son is disabled after having been repeatedly traumatized by an unethical psychiatric researcher using treatments that were not approved for children. Ultimately, these events are what compelled me to write this blog. Psychiatric diagnosis and "medical treatment" were in reality, inhumane mistreatment of my son. He grew up being victimized by professionals who violated his human dignity, his human rights and caused him grave harm. I know my son's experiences are not unusual. It is not an uncommon Real World Outcome for a person with a psychiatric diagnosis, to be left disabled by psychiatric treatments used in standard clinical practice.
via Health and Human Services
The Belmont Report
Office of the Secretary
Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Research
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
April 18, 1979
A couple excerpts:
Part B: Basic Ethical Principles
"In most cases of research involving human subjects, respect for persons demands that subjects enter into the research voluntarily and with adequate information. In some situations, however, application of the principle is not obvious."
Part C: Applications
C. Applications
Applications of the general principles to the conduct of research leads to consideration of the following requirements: informed consent, risk/benefit assessment, and the selection of subjects of research.
1. Informed Consent. -- Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.
While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.
(emphasis mine)
Summary
The Belmont Report explicitly states the requirements for researchers who perform studies involving human subjects to comply with Federal Law, The Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46). It is plain that these protections are not, and have never been in fact effectively preserved or protected for people with a psychiatric diagnosis. There is no way anyone could provide "Informed Consent" without being informed that all Psychiatric diagnoses, pharmacological or other mental health "treatment" protocols, algorithms and recommendations, e.g."Practice Parameters;" and standards of care are codified in committee by consensus, a quasi-democratic process; not a scientific endeavor.
Psychiatry claims it is a "medical specialty," yet many of it's standard practices, including the standards guiding treatment using teratogenic, psychotropic drugs, are not supported by empirical data. It is without an ethical scientific foundation. As a result, psychiatry cannot adhere to the ethical principles of medicine. Psychiatric research and clinical practice violates patients rights under Federal Law as a matter of course. In effect, and in fact, psychiatric practice denies Human Research Protection to psychiatric patients, since treatment without solid empirical support is in fact, experimental treatment. Psychiatrists and advocates alike claim these protections are not needed, and are not in psychiatric patient's best interest; some even claim these Human Rights are not relevant or meaningful to psychiatric patients. CFR 46 and the Nuremberg Code, protect all people; even, (perhaps especially) people who have a psychiatric diagnosis. The Nuremberg Code was developed to prevent the types of Crimes Against Humanity that were committed by psychiatrists in Europe leading up to and during WWII; why have we not enforced these Human Rights protections AT ALL in the United States?
Psychiatry claims it is a "medical specialty," yet many of it's standard practices, including the standards guiding treatment using teratogenic, psychotropic drugs, are not supported by empirical data. It is without an ethical scientific foundation. As a result, psychiatry cannot adhere to the ethical principles of medicine. Psychiatric research and clinical practice violates patients rights under Federal Law as a matter of course. In effect, and in fact, psychiatric practice denies Human Research Protection to psychiatric patients, since treatment without solid empirical support is in fact, experimental treatment. Psychiatrists and advocates alike claim these protections are not needed, and are not in psychiatric patient's best interest; some even claim these Human Rights are not relevant or meaningful to psychiatric patients. CFR 46 and the Nuremberg Code, protect all people; even, (perhaps especially) people who have a psychiatric diagnosis. The Nuremberg Code was developed to prevent the types of Crimes Against Humanity that were committed by psychiatrists in Europe leading up to and during WWII; why have we not enforced these Human Rights protections AT ALL in the United States?
Robert Whitaker's article points out that the NIMH is funding psychiatric research as if it is a scientific fact that mental illnesses are genetic, biological manifestations of a disease process. This is merely a hypothesis, it is not even a validated theory, let alone a medical certainty... The NIMH list of 10 research advances do not include even one psycho-social or cognitive behavioral advance. Could this be an intentional owversight? Whether it is or is not intentional, it is irresponsible and unethical. It is a bias that is very telling, at the very least.
The American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Institutes of Mental Health and the Food and Drug Administration work in concert with Big Pharma to stifle dissent, discourage open academic inquiry and debate, and deny the harm done to patients as a result of their medical malfeasance.
NIMH funded research is often not conducted or reported ethically. The "medical professionals" who are Key Opinion Leaders and Educators, and paid consultants obfuscate the truth about the validity and reliability of psychiatric diagnoses; the etiology of psychiatric symptoms and mental illnesses; and then deny the negative effects of their subterfuge, their diagnoses, and their treatments. This not medicine, e.g. "first, do no harm..." Deception is not ethical, moral, or scientific; dishonesty serves no therapeutic, or medical purpose. The purpose of this prevarication is to deceive; a deception with the underlying intent to change or direct individual and societal behavior. It is fraud. Stigmatizing people, including children given a psychiatric diagnosis and enlisting their families assistance in coercing treatment compliance; the primary goal is to maintain psychiatric authority, but never actually earning trust or respect. It is fraud, not the ethical practice of medicine. Fraud is illegal for good damned reason. Doctors should never perpetrate fraud to "practice medicine." Obviously, doctors who rely on deception, coercion and other social control strategies are criminals.
Eugenics Building picture credit
Nuremberg Code picture credit
Human Experimentation credit
first posted 1-25-2012
The American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Institutes of Mental Health and the Food and Drug Administration work in concert with Big Pharma to stifle dissent, discourage open academic inquiry and debate, and deny the harm done to patients as a result of their medical malfeasance.
NIMH funded research is often not conducted or reported ethically. The "medical professionals" who are Key Opinion Leaders and Educators, and paid consultants obfuscate the truth about the validity and reliability of psychiatric diagnoses; the etiology of psychiatric symptoms and mental illnesses; and then deny the negative effects of their subterfuge, their diagnoses, and their treatments. This not medicine, e.g. "first, do no harm..." Deception is not ethical, moral, or scientific; dishonesty serves no therapeutic, or medical purpose. The purpose of this prevarication is to deceive; a deception with the underlying intent to change or direct individual and societal behavior. It is fraud. Stigmatizing people, including children given a psychiatric diagnosis and enlisting their families assistance in coercing treatment compliance; the primary goal is to maintain psychiatric authority, but never actually earning trust or respect. It is fraud, not the ethical practice of medicine. Fraud is illegal for good damned reason. Doctors should never perpetrate fraud to "practice medicine." Obviously, doctors who rely on deception, coercion and other social control strategies are criminals.
Eugenics Building picture credit
Nuremberg Code picture credit
Human Experimentation credit
first posted 1-25-2012
No comments:
Post a Comment