Psychotic experiences ‘not always pathologic’
a few excerpts:“In line with the cognitive model of psychosis, the High UE group demonstrates that it may not be the anomalous experiences in and of themselves that are pathological, but one's cognitive interpretation of these aberrant experiences that differentiates between adaptive and pathological progression,” the researchers write in Psychiatry Research.
“In particular, one’s level of certainty in the appraisal of unusual experiences may be more salient in determining the psychopathological relevance of these experiences than their frequency.”
“The association between the interpersonal dimension of schizotypy and well-being is consistent with previous evidence, which indicates that this domain is most closely associated with poor quality of life,” comment the researchers.
“This research may help broaden our understanding of adaptive cognitive interpretations of unusual experiences, which may be applied to the treatment of individuals in the early phases of psychosis.”
read here
A MadMother's analysis:
One's appraisal and interpretation of personal experiences, unusual or not, is influenced by one's interpersonal relationships. How individual family members and members of one's social groups respond and/or react to an individual ALWAYS matters. In the publicly funded social service mental health treatment system, the unusual experiences this article is discussing are commonly "medically treated" automatically due to a belief that such experiences are indicative of the person having a brain disease that must be "medically treated"; or worse, controlled and medically treated under color of law. Failure to mention, or even attempt to explain that social, political and environmental factors influence how the person having the unusual experience even interprets the relevance of the experience, is strange to say the very least. Obviously, how a person interprets unusual experiences helps to determine the relevance of the experiences themselves. Equally obvious, no one has experiences unusual or not that cause others concern in an intrapersonal vacuum.
I would posit that "The association between the interpersonal dimension of schizotypy and well-being is...most closely associated with poor quality of life" because other people's responses, particularly negative ones like fear and revulsion, and other non-supportive biases and beliefs would influence the interpretation of whether or not the experience has psycho-pathological relevance, but also the social and political consequences of sharing that one has unusual experiences with others can literally be fatal.
Sharing that one has such experiences is a risk because mental health advocates, psychiatrists and mental health professionals have been "educating" the general public that these experiences are symptomatic of a person having a genetic, underlying neuro-biological condition, i.e. an incurable brain disease. Many also claim the hypothetical psychiatric disease prevents a person from realizing they have the disease. Although this hypothetical etiology for psychiatric diagnoses has yet to be empirically validated, it has become the theoretically "Evidence Based" or "Best Practice" foundation for clinical standards of care in widespread use. Indeed, it is the only "help" available to many who seek help; particularly those on Medicaid seeking help from publicly funded mental health clinics. The disease hypothesis is the fraudulent claim underlying billions of dollars of Medicaid Fraud that has been committed; fraud that continues unabated in spite of successful lawsuits and massive penalties being levied. When used in standard clinical practice, this fraudulent claim called "psycho-education;" another tool used to manipulate and control patients in order to maintain treatment compliance, "for their own good." Successful treatment is redefined to mean compliant with treatment; treatment outcome is not a factor considered when declaring a patient to be successfully treated.
If one is taught that a psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia means the diagnosed person has a brain disease that has no cure, I imagine believing the claim would influence the interpretation of what unusual experiences mean to a person who has the experiences, and to the people who care about them. What I do not understand is how accepting a hypothetical etiology for psychiatric diagnosis on faith, i.e. unsupported by definitive empirical evidence; can conceivably justify the gross Human Rights violations that are common in the mental health treatment system. How any doctor (or anyone else) can believe using coercion and other social control tactics while virtually ignoring the Ethical Guidelines for Informed Consent of the medical profession, i.e.violating a person's Human Rights, can be justified simply by claiming this egregious unethical behavior is motivated by an altruistic intent, escapes me entirely.
That fact that unethical and abusive methods are not only tolerated, but are considered acceptable treatment methods that are commonly used in standard practice, belies the claim that psychiatry is a medical specialty. Coercion, deceit and abuse of power and authority are social and political control strategies, not ethical medical practices and procedures! Bio-medical psychiatry is based upon a yet to be empirically validated hypothesis, and relies on methods of social and political control that violate the Human Rights of psychiatric patients, these practices are accepted and widely used--even Court Ordered without requiring any evidence that meets the Rules of Evidence standard that is legally required for EVERY other type of legal proceeding.
The fact that doctors and other medical professionals use social and political control strategies, does not change the nature of what is being done to people in distress by mental health professionals. Abusive behavior and social control strategies are not magically transformed into acceptable or even ethical behaviors simply because a medical professional exhibits them in a professional capacity acting under color of law. These well known standard practices in all likelihood increase the risk that unusual experiences will be misconstrued by the person having them and by others; and intentionally or not, will exacerbate the person's distress. These are abusive Standards of Care which erect barriers that inhibit respect, trust and empathy. Without trust, therapeutic relationships are improbable, if not impossible. Lack of positive relationships, further increases a person's risk for experiencing psychopathology (and iatrogenic harm). Whether a relationship is positive or negative is not the sole responsibility of the person in distress, or the helping professional. However, I believe that connecting respectfully with a patient and earning the trust of that patient, particularly one who is in distress, are primary ethical duties of a mental health professional. A professional should never act as if they are due any respect or trust that has not been earned through interaction with the patient in distress; much less, diagnose the person with anosognosia for not blindly trusting their medical expertise, or respecting their medical authority...
The fact that doctors and other medical professionals use social and political control strategies, does not change the nature of what is being done to people in distress by mental health professionals. Abusive behavior and social control strategies are not magically transformed into acceptable or even ethical behaviors simply because a medical professional exhibits them in a professional capacity acting under color of law. These well known standard practices in all likelihood increase the risk that unusual experiences will be misconstrued by the person having them and by others; and intentionally or not, will exacerbate the person's distress. These are abusive Standards of Care which erect barriers that inhibit respect, trust and empathy. Without trust, therapeutic relationships are improbable, if not impossible. Lack of positive relationships, further increases a person's risk for experiencing psychopathology (and iatrogenic harm). Whether a relationship is positive or negative is not the sole responsibility of the person in distress, or the helping professional. However, I believe that connecting respectfully with a patient and earning the trust of that patient, particularly one who is in distress, are primary ethical duties of a mental health professional. A professional should never act as if they are due any respect or trust that has not been earned through interaction with the patient in distress; much less, diagnose the person with anosognosia for not blindly trusting their medical expertise, or respecting their medical authority...
via TheRSA:
No comments:
Post a Comment