Healing Voices Documentary

via Healing Voices:

 

 via Open Paradigm on YouTube:

NEW Promo for HEALING VOICES one-night global event April 29, 2016. For more information please visit www.HealingVoicesMovie.com

Healing Voices public group on Facebook

Connecting respectfully with a patient, earning trust are primary professional duties

via Medical News:

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... 

via TheRSA:

Richard Bentall: Treating Psychosis: The limits of anti-psychotics

via IAI:
Clinical psychologist and author of Doctoring the Mind and Madness Explained, Richard Bentall is a leading critic of biological explanations of mental illness and the pharmaceutical industry. He teaches at the University of Liverpool.
The Talk

The clinical psychologist and author of Madness Explained presents new evidence for the limitations of anti-psychotic medication and of the psychiatric establishment.

Watch more videos on iai.tv

Richard Bentall on Why Society Drives You Mad

via The Institute of Art and Ideas:

Introducing IaI

The Institute of Art and Ideas (IaI) is committed to fostering a progressive and vibrant intellectual culture in the UK. We are a charitable, not-for-profit organisation engaged in changing the current cultural landscape through the pursuit and promotion of big ideas, boundary-pushing thinkers and challenging debates.  read the rest of the introduction here

Why Society Drives You Mad

Richard Bentall

Clinical psychologist and vocal critic of psychiatry Richard Bentall reveals why social inequality, racism and the built environment have a far more significant role to play in mental illness than the biomedical establishment acknowledges.

Watch more videos on iai.tv

Richard Bentall previously on Involuntary Transformation 

Steve Morgan, Director of Soteria Vermont

via  Mad in America:

via Voices of Recovery:
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2008
Steve Morgan: Recovery & NAMI

I am writing this letter as a plea for reconciliation amongst those of us who have psychiatric diagnoses, those of us who issue them, those of us who have family members with them, and those of us who work toward related policies. As we are all aware, there are multiple tensions that exist amongst differing organizations within the mental health world, but I truly believe that if we can all begin to have a compassionate conversation, we will find a healthy common ground between our sometimes conflicting ideologies.

I specifically wish to address NAMI.

NAMI does good work throughout the country. They have power and use it to push for more awareness and treatment of psychiatric disorders. Indeed, NAMI has the constituency and funding to invoke a lot of positive change in our communities, providers, and legislators. I respect the work that they do, and see their passion as a measure of their enormous care of, frustration with, and optimism towards the mental health system in general.

So, it is with respect for their efforts that I wish to challenge some of the fundamental assumptions that they promote, specifically about what "mental illness" is, and how it is best treated. I hope that by speaking from my heart, my plea comes off as an invitation for more dialogue around these important issues that are sometimes taken for granted.

I want to start off by sharing something that I wrote the other night...

I am an individual who was diagnosed with severe and persistent mental illness, struggled for many years to emerge, and now am healed and work in the mental health world.

This is what I wrote when reflecting upon my relationship to diagnosis and the popular information floating around about "mental illness":

When I believed that a chemical imbalance drove my everyday experience, I told myself, "I am Bipolar." When I learned that the chemical imbalance was only a part of me, I told other people, "I have Bipolar." When I discovered that a chemical imbalance has nothing to do with me, I realized, "I am Human."

I share these words with you as an illustration of how insight shaped my own journey towards wholeness and healing. Being diagnosed had the residual effect of transforming how I relate to the world and my experiences.

In the beginning, I sorted through the various phases of my past and tossed them into clinical categories, and it all seemed to make sense. I also began to see my everyday emotions and thoughts as the product of a chemical imbalance in my brain. My sense of self became infused with a deep uncertainty, and because I was at a loss for why I did not seem to fit into the world, I absorbed all of the literature and psychiatric declarations that I was in fact Bipolar.

After a couple of years, I slowly graduated my thinking to: "I have Bipolar," which was a product of learning about the principles of recovery and truly embracing the notion that my "mental illness" is a part of me, not the whole me. At that point, I learned about "managing my illness," and as a result, came to believe that my chemical imbalance was in fact treatable – especially through medications – though highly volatile if left to its natural course.

Throughout this time, I was a voracious reader of mental health material, but I had never explored the actual scientific literature from which the material claimed to emanate, nor had I read many alternative perspectives on "mental illness."

Then, one day, things changed. I met a man who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, but no longer took medications. Moreover, he worked full time in a very challenging position, and was sharp, compassionate, and full of humanity. Certainly, he did not seem to be experiencing "symptoms," and he didn't seem to be "in remission" either. He seemed healed.

As things go, I began meeting more and more people who had experienced profound suffering in their lives – been traumatized, diagnosed, hospitalized repeatedly, stigmatized, and on and on. But these people were well now. And not just "stabilized." But "well" in the sense of having emerged from a dark void with wisdom, clarity, and deep compassion; "well" in the sense of working long and hard hours altruistically. And again, they were not taking medications.

Slowly, I started to investigate some of my long-held assumptions, and slowly, I started to wake up to a different reality, one in which I started using terms like "experiences" instead of "symptoms"; "trauma" instead of "disease"; "problems" instead of "illness"; and "neuroplasticity" instead of "chemical imbalance".

In my inquiry into the scientific literature, I was shocked to find that many of the messages that I had received about "mental illness" were in fact highly presumptuous, and in some cases, driven by economics. For example, the notion of a "chemical imbalance" is suspect and misleading, and certainly not supported by reliable science. In fact, in this month's Scientific American Mind – a pop-culture psychology magazine – you can read, "The imbalance to which the SSRI ads refer is a deficit of the neurotransmitter serotonin at receptor sites in the brain. Such advertising is misleading, however, and does not reflect scientific findings. There is no clear scientific evidence that neurotransmitter deficits cause depression or that there is an optimal "balance" of neurotransmitter levels in the brain."

There may be a million people saying that mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, but that doesn't make it true. The truth is, in the scientific research, there has never actually been a chemical imbalance observed or measured. It is all inferred, and the inference is based upon a dangerous line of reasoning: "there is a form of circular reasoning that goes: if SSRIs are helpful in alleviating depression, and if they do change the "chemical imbalance," then depression must be caused by that imbalance. Inferring causality from the success of a treatment is frequently a flawed endeavor: aspirin is effective for headaches, but no one would seriously claim that headaches are caused by a deficiency of aspirin."

As my awareness expanded, I started rethinking the notion of "mental illness" as "chronic" and "persistent". Certainly, what is called bipolar disorder and schizophrenia can show up for many years, but if you look at the research, you will find that a majority of individuals in longitudinal studies are shown to significantly improve or recover entirely, and many without medications. How can "schizophrenia" be "chronic" and "persistent" when there are so many people out there who have emerged from it entirely? In fact, doesn't the evidence suggest just the opposite, that the chances are, you'll recover (and not just "recover" in the sense of "illness management," but in the sense of having a satisfying life without psychiatric experiences)?

The link to trauma in the development of "mental illness" is even more shocking, with some studies indicating that over 90% of people diagnosed with SPMI having had experienced trauma. If this is the case, can we really say that "mental illness" is "just like diabetes," as if it were all a physical flaw, and a permanent one at that? If trauma in fact triggers "mental illness" in the brain, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the illness and the disease are trauma, and that the symptoms of the disease are the plastic brain changes that we see? My point here is that popular messages about "mental illness" have stripped it of its context, thereby making it a brain error, when in fact, the brain is highly malleable, and could be thought of as reflecting experience as much as creating it.

What's most surprising in the scientific literature is that which surrounds the use of medication. Let me be clear in saying that medication can be helpful to individuals, and that some individuals attribute medication to saving their lives. But, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that medication should not be used by all people, and that with some people, it may actually hinder recovery. Thus, if we are to make any statement about medication, we should say that it is a tool that some people find useful, and that some people don't. In an ideal world, the scientific literature would inform psychiatric practice, meaning that just because someone shows up on the sofa with "symptoms" of a "severe and persistent mental illness" doesn't mean that s/he will be given medicine. But have you ever heard of a psychiatrist choosing not to administer medication to someone diagnosed with schizophrenia?

I no longer identify myself with Bipolar, though others still do, as I was recently rejected to a Meditation Retreat based upon my past psychiatric history and the "risk" that they assumed I pose. I am not in denial; nor am I in remission. Like all people, I cannot say where I will be emotionally in a year, but I do believe that I will be able to handle whatever happens, for I am now learning how to be fully human, not just the manager of my brain chemicals.

In terms of NAMI, I am concerned with some of their positions on "mental illness", which seem to be highly medical and follow a line of reasoning that medication is fundamental. As a brief example of such material, here are some statements from their handout on Bipolar Disorder that I find troubling (I have offered my counterpoint to each):

1. "The greatest risk in bipolar disorder is not getting treatment, or refusing treatment because of lack of insight into, or inability to resist, the lure of mania."

a. This is untrue for many of us. Many of us have actually been hurt by treatment, or experience great benefits from what is labeled "mania." I once made a 14-song album in a month and played every instrument on it during a period of "mania." The "lack of insight" declaration is arrogant and assumes that doctors know best, as opposed to allowing for people who actually have these experiences to define whether or not they value them. Also, many people "refuse treatment" because they find the treatment harmful, not because of "lack of insight" or the "inability to resist, the lure of mania".


2. "Bipolar disorder is a complex medical illness of the brain."

a. This statement strips "Bipolar disorder" from its context. Nothing happens in a vacuum, especially human experiences. The brain responds to the environment by literally changing shape, so that trauma actually physically alters the brain. If this is so, how can we call "Bipolar disorder" a "complex medical illness of the brain" as opposed to a reaction to trauma? Personally, I have found "Bipolar disorder" to be a "Spiritual Journey" more than anything else, and I know of many, many other individuals who share the same opinion. We would like our voices to be included in this ongoing dialogue, not to be told what we have or are, especially given the lack of scientific evidence.


3. "While no one knows the exact cause of bipolar disorder, most scientists believe that bipolar disorder is likely caused by multiple factors that interact with each other to produce a chemical imbalance affecting certain parts of the brain."

a. Again, the "chemical imbalance" theory is highly manipulative of the science we do have. Furthermore, much of the research into such theories is actually paid for and sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies, creating an obvious conflict of interest. It should be noted that an actual chemical imbalance has never been observed.


4. "Bipolar disorder is a chronic condition, much like diabetes. Because periods of remission are sometimes complete, but are often complicated by persistent symptoms, bipolar illness requires preventive maintenance treatment as well as acute treatment, ongoing medication management, and close monitoring during periods of remission."

a. "Bipolar disorder" is nothing like diabetes. For one, "Bipolar disorder" is often not chronic or "everyday", as scientific studies show again and again. Second, "Bipolar disorder" is a highly subjective experience that is culturally defined, whereas diabetes is pretty much agreed upon around the world as a disease and as unwanted. Third, "Bipolar disorder" does not require ongoing medication management, as many of us do not take medications and are clear and well.


5. "Your management plan should include attention to lifestyle, stress management, supports, and also medication options."

a. This statement says that my management plan "should" include medication options. No, it may include medication options. This statement should be followed with information about the number of people who do not respond to medications or who prefer not to take them to allow for the reader to understand that he or she does not have to take medications to be well.


6. "While medication is one key element in successful treatment of bipolar disorder, psychotherapy, support groups, and education about the illness are also essential components of the treatment process."

a. The first part of this statement, that medication is "one key element" in successful treatment, is again presumptuous and declarative that medications are essential.


7. "The most useful psychotherapies generally focus on understanding the illness, learning how to cope with it, and changing ineffective patterns of thinking or interacting."

a. This is untrue for many of us. I went through 9 months of therapy with a man who intentionally did not use the term "Bipolar," and with whom I learned to successfully re-transcribe my experiences into meaningful ones as opposed to chemical ones. In fact, I just heard a recent study presented during a SAMHSA teleconference that "Illness Insight" may actually be detrimental to recovery, in that it often leads to self-stigmatization, which was certainly the case for me.


8. "The ideal course of research is to identify medication that, used alone or in combination, effectively prevents episodes and offers maximum periods of symptom-free maintenance coverage during periods of remission."

a. Where does this information come from? I think that the "ideal course of research" should be to find treatments that work, not just medication treatments. Unfortunately, so much money is given by pharmaceutical companies to research that there is little in the way of "alternative treatments," which many of us claim have been the most helpful.


9. "People living with bipolar disorder should remember, however, that the recovery they attain usually depends in large part on the medications they are taking and their other health and wellness strategies."

a. This is a presumptuous statement and does not reflect the majority of interactions I have with "recovered" individuals. Most of us would attribute the "recovery we attain" to things like meaning, spirituality/faith, employment, human connection, peer support, personal responsibility, and so on, the same mechanisms that bring all human beings peace and joy. In our recovery, medication may or may not be helpful, but many of us would not say that our recovery has depended in large part on it. I see that the second half of this statement says "other health and wellness strategies," but again, the wording indicates that medication belongs in a class by itself, as a fundamental cornerstone to healing.

Too often the rhetoric of passionate debates skips over solutions, thus, I have listed them here in an attempt to be proactive as opposed to just long-winded. Here are some of my proposed solutions:

1. NAMI consider changing some of its language.

a. I am specifically concerned about the use of medical language. No one has a perfect solution to getting the language surrounding mental health "just right." We must all be creative in this process. I have found a great way to start challenging my own medically- induced worldview is by refusing myself to use the word "symptoms." Being a worker in the mental health world, I have to communicate with others, so I have consequently started talking about thoughts, emotions, and behaviors just as they are – thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, as opposed to a detached and bland reductionism of human experiences to "symptoms" of an "illness." I find that by doing this, I am doing myself, whomever I'm speaking to, and certainly anyone I am describing, a huge service. Indeed, by describing specifics, I am more clearly communicating. I am also re-humanizing some of the experiences that people with psychiatric diagnoses have. By saying something like, "Dave says he is feeling scared" instead of "Dave is symptomatic" or "Dave is paranoid," I am changing the way in which my colleagues and I perceive and communicate about other peoples' life experiences. Some other great solutions that I have heard: people using the term "big emotions" and "huge feelings" to describe what are traditionally thought of as "symptoms." I myself say things like "really hyper" or "full of energy" instead of "manic," and "I am with sadness" or "I am feeling vulnerable" as opposed to "I am depressed."

b. Additionally, the term "mental illness" may want to be revisited. This is, of course, tricky and new territory, but there are many alternatives that people are using to compensate for "mental illness." I say "psychiatric experiences" – I feel that term is ambiguous enough to encapsulate the people who feel harmed by psychiatry itself – and talk about "individuals with psychiatric diagnoses" as opposed to "adults with mental illness." By saying "individuals with psychiatric diagnoses," I feel that I am not claiming that the individual "accepts" or is burdened by an "illness," but simply that s/he has been given a diagnosis, whatever s/he feels about it. In that sense, I think it differentiates the individual from the diagnosis and somewhat severs the assumed relationship. Other people say "adults with psychiatric disabilities" or "people diagnosed with psychiatric disorders" and so on. As for "mental illness" itself, there are some people who refer to it as "spiritual emergency" or "spiritual emergence," or terms as clear as "mental health issues" or "mental health problems."

[i. Please consider revamping the repeated and emphatic use of "illness" to describe crises.

ii. Also, Shery Mead has written some excellent work on Worldview and Language: www.mentalhealthpeers.com]

c. On a whole, NAMI may want to emphasize less on the brain and more on environmental and existential conditions that lead to psychiatric experiences. Of course, there could certainly be more material on the impact of trauma.

d. I personally feel that the comparisons between "mental illness" and "diabetes" or other physical diseases are flawed and not supported by science.


2. NAMI add conflicting opinions to its existing literature and Provider Education program.

a. I may be going out on a limb here, but wouldn't it be wonderful to read something like this (currently in the existing NAMI literature):
"While no one knows the exact cause of bipolar disorder, most scientists believe that bipolar disorder is likely caused by multiple factors that interact with each other to produce a chemical imbalance affecting certain parts of the brain."
Followed by this (not currently in the existing NAMI literature)
"However, there are many other people, including individuals who have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, who would claim otherwise, instead defining the cause as related to life experiences, spiritual crises, past trauma, or various cultural expectations."

In fact, my challenge to NAMI is to include as many "consumer" voices and opinions as those of scientists. That would allow for people who are reading the materials or taking the Provider Education course to be introduced to an array of models for understanding human experience, which in fact would be empowering to those many individuals who currently feel marginalized by the "brain disease" theories that they find disagreeable.


3. NAMI change their overall emphasis of medication in treatment.

a. First and foremost, NAMI could introduce statements such as "Medications do not work for everyone" and "Some people find recovery without medications" into the existing literature and dialogues. They could even back the statements up with current scientific research.

b. Also, please consider removing statements like "People living with bipolar disorder should remember, however, that the recovery they attain usually depends in large part on the medications they are taking and their other health and wellness strategies" that feel – to me – paternalistic, and that in my experience are not entirely true.

c. NAMI could consider some of the shifts of consciousness in medication use promoted by people like Pat Deegan (www.patdeegan.com). I cannot justly speak for her, but she has basically introduced the concept of "using medication" as opposed to "taking medication." In this way, a person who is prescribed medication uses it as a tool as opposed to simply taking it passively. The emphasis for medication use is that it should be the person's choice, and that the person should feel empowered with it to help in his or her recovery, not ashamed or passive.

d. NAMI may want to revisit the use of literature from pharmaceutical companies that emphasizes the necessity of medication use. While much of this literature is seemingly helpful and useful, if the literature proclaims that medicine is a necessary component to recovery, then it is promoting a one-sided belief system that many of us see as damaging.


4. NAMI mention in its literature and at its meetings the scientific studies that demonstrate that a majority of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia significantly improve or recover entirely, many without medications.

I was very pleased with the two speakers at the recent NAMI-VT annual conference who cited Courtney Harding's work! These studies are powerful, scientific, and dramatically challenge our presumptions about the course and outcome of diagnoses such as schizophrenia. Here is a great place to start for some research and perspectives into the many faces of recovery: Repository or check out this quick review of studies: Evidence


5. NAMI consider promoting alternative treatments at conferences.

a. At the recent NAMI-VT conference, a representative for Abilify had a booth and handed out materials. I do not see the point in having a drug rep at an annual conference, but if NAMI wishes to have drug reps in the future, they would be doing a great service to the term "fair and balanced" by having reps from health clubs, alternative therapeutic communities (which, to NAMI VT's credit, there were some reps from Spring Lake Ranch, which I presume is "alternative," though I am not too familiar with them), naturopathic facilities, consumer/survivor/ex-patient organizations, local community interests, spiritual communities /organizations/facilities, and so on. It would be too idealistic to suggest having all of these types of peoples represented at every conference, but I think NAMI could at least consider having some other options available.


6. NAMI keep away from highly political and moral/ethical controversies such as involuntary treatment.

I am writing this proposed solution strictly from my heart, though I can point to some rational reasons why NAMI would benefit from staying out of advocacy on involuntary treatment. The most obvious reason is that these issues are highly emotional and dear to many people who have in fact experienced things such as involuntary treatment. Thus, when NAMI gets involved, or promotes people who advocate for one side only, NAMI isolates a lot of people, and quite frankly, a lot of anger and resentment results. NAMI has a large constituency that makes it very powerful, and I ask that it please be mindful of this power when working on legislative levels. NAMI did not begin from people with psychiatric diagnoses, and while many of us are connected nowadays to NAMI, the organization still doesn't fully represent our many voices. Thus, while advocates at NAMI may see their work on issues such as involuntary treatment as kind and compassionate, they may find that the people for whom they are advocating actually strongly disagree with their positions and stances. It is so important to many of us who have experienced some of the uglier sides of mental health treatment that our voices are heard and respected, and that we are not unfairly represented by large organizations who may be making skewed though well-meaning presumptions.

I would like to end my list by saying that I am not by any means "the voice" for those of us who may have concerns with some of NAMI's messages/practices, nor do I feel hardly able to represent the many brilliant and beautiful solutions that people are offering as alternatives. In my proposed solutions here, I am simply offering the best list that I can think of on a given night, so I want to attest to the fact that is just my opinion! The best that we can all do is continue to research, ask questions, and listen to one another. I hope that others who have differing solutions will also either speak up or be engaged to be included in any process of reform.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

© Steven Morgan

Source: A Challenge for NAMI National

See also: Vermont Recovery

Also via Mad in America:

Steven Morgan, Project Director of the Vermont Soteria Project, Reflects on Working With Psychosis

training video on how to diagnose ‘Attenuated Psychosis’ demonstrates how not to carry out a psychiatric interview and interact with young people.

via Speed up Sit Still:

Patrick McGorry’s ‘Ultra High Risk of Psychosis’ training DVD fails the common sense test

Is Nick Sick? by Professor Jon Jureidini

“Patrick McGorry’s CAARMS training video on how to diagnose ‘Attenuated Psychosis’ demonstrates how not to carry out a psychiatric interview and interact with young people.”

Describing Nick as being at ultra-high risk of psychosis (UHR) does fail the common-sense test. Even more concerning is that Nick is labelled as having Attenuated Psychosis – in ordinary language, he is already mildly mad.

Professor McGorry justifies diagnosing young people like Nick as being at ‘ultra high risk’ because within the next 12 months they are ‘between two and four hundred times’ more likely to become psychotic than ‘the general population’.

But we must respect the ordinary everyday language meaning of ultra high risk. If I am labelled as being at ultra-high risk of something, I assume that I will probably be affected. I do not interpret that label as meaning I am simply much more at risk than my peers.

Even Professor McGorry acknowledges that nearly two-thirds of the people identified as being at ultra high risk of developing psychosis, don’t become psychotic. Independent evidence shows the conversion rate is as low as 8%. With between 64% and 92% false positives, the true ‘ultra high’ risk is the risk of being incorrectly labelled.

The pay-off for testing for UHR is simply not sufficient to justify the cost. One cost is that Nick is now being taught to see himself as sick. Who knows if this might not even increase this vulnerable young man’s risk of ultimately being diagnosed with full-blown psychosis? And as Martin Whitely points out, it stigmatises him.

But more important to me than stigmatisation is the fact that the UHR label is an unexplanation; it ignores what is going on in Nick’s life. Unexplaining is different from saying ‘I don’t know’ (something we doctors would do well to say more often). Unexplanations distract from the difficult but rewarding task of working with a young person towards finding an explanation for their stress.

Nick makes it pretty easy for the listener. He tells us about being bullied into a trade that he doesn’t want to be in, and he invites the interviewer to explore his relationship with his father. The interviewer doesn’t notice, or chooses to ignore this invitation, instead sticking to a stereotyped list of questions that generate the sterile unexplanation of UHR.

It might be argued that the interviewer would come back to this later. However, in my experience, young people prefer us to show an interest in their difficult and intimate predicaments when they first get the courage to put them into words.

I am grateful to Martin Whitely for putting the CAARMS training video into the public domain because it provides a potential teaching tool for medical students in how not to carry out a psychiatric interview and interact with young people.

1. Orygen Youth Health Centre, 2009, “Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental State Training DVD“, The PACE Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne.

2. McGorry P. Right of Reply – Patrick McGorry on Early Intervention for Psychosis. December 11, 2010. http://speedupsitstill.com/reply-patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis#more-1075

3. Professor McGorry wrote “the false positive rate [for UHR] may exceed 50-60%” McGorry P.D. ‘Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? Yes’, BMJ 2008;337:a695 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695 (accessed 3 August 2010) Professor McGorry’s close colleague Alison Yung identified the conversion rate from UHR to first episode psychosis was 36% in an article in the Medical Journal of Australia titled Is it appropriate to treat people at high-risk of psychosis before first onset — Yes Available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/it-appropriate-treat-people-high-risk-psychosis-first-onset-yes

4. Professor David Castle, Medical Journal of Australia, 21 May 2012, Is it appropriate to treat people at high-risk of psychosis before first onset — No Available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/it-appropriate-treat-people-high-risk-psychosis-first-onset-no

Jaakko Seikkula Speaks on Finnish Open Dialogue, Social Networks, and Recovery from Psychosis

via Daniel Mackler
Here I interview with Jaakko Seikkula, PhD, a professor of psychotherapy at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland who is best known for his work with Finnish Open Dialogue. He speaks about the value of engaging social networks in crisis situations, the development of the Finnish Open Dialogue approach, the idea that there is meaning behind psychosis, and some unexpected benefits in Western Lapland of including family members in therapy with people experiencing psychosis.

via TAOS Institute:

Professor of Psychotherapy
Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä
Box 35, FIN-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland

Jaakko has been mainly involved in developing family and social network based practices in psychiatry with psychosis and other severe crises. Since early 80’s until 1998 he was a member of the team in Western Lapland in Finland for developing the comprehensive Open Dialogue approach, which Jaakko has been studying both concerning the processes of dialogues and the outcomes in treatment of acute psychosis. The power of dialogue became evident in the remarkable results when 85 % could return to full employment and over 80 % living without any psychotic experiences at five year follow up. This was reached by minimum use of antipsychotic medication, in 2/3 of cases none.

After moving to University of Jyväskylä he has become involved in many development and research projects. Recently ideas of open dialogues have been applied in social work with children’ problems, in organization consultation, supervision and teaching. Research has focused on outcome and process studies on family therapy of psychosis and depression and social network interventions. Concerning outcome studies in psychotherapy the main focus is on developing methods for naturalistic designs to see how the psychotherapy affect in real world, in every day clinical practice.

Another line of developing and research has focused on research methods for dialogues in family therapy settings. A new method – at the moment named as Dialogical Methods for Investigations in Happenings of Change – is in progress. The main aim is to develop tools for making sense of what happens in multi actor dialogues, especially focusing on the responses in dialogues.

This is related with Jaakko’s main language philosophical interest on Mikhail Bakhtin’s works for 25 year. Jaakko wrote first text referring to Bakhtin 1987 and since then Bakhtin has been the main inspiration for understanding the power of dialogue in human life. During last years the importance of the being present in the moment in the “once occurring participation in being” has become the most important aspect of therapy and writing and teaching about therapy. Jaakko is invited for tens of workshops and congress presentation every years.

Healing Elements of Therapeutic Conversation: Dialogue as an Embodiment of Love
Open Dialogues With Good And Poor Outcomes For Psychotic Crises: Examples From Families With Violence
Inner and outer voices in the present moment of family and network therapy
Psychotherapy Research. Five-year experience of first-episode non-affective psychosis in open-dialogue approach: Treatment principles, follow-up outcomes, and two case studies

For more on Open Dialogue, see: http://psychrights.org/research/Digest/Effective/fiveyarocpsychotherapyresearch.pdf

Daniel Mackler's website: Essays for the Truth Seeker Healing from Childhood Trauma

photo credit thizzlerice on photobucket
originally post with just the video 7-31-2011

'mental illness' is unlike any other illness

Dr. Bejamin Rush's 'Tranquilizer Chair 1811

THE beginning of  STIGMA--occurs when the degree of empathy, true acceptance, hope and love communicated both verbally and non-verbally--by EVERYONE--towards the person with a diagnosis, is absent, contrived or superficial.  Whether one has genuine respect, or has positive regard for another human being (or not) is expressed not only by our speech, but tone of voice, volume, the words that are used, facial expression, posture and gestures made.  People with psychiatric labels, even those who supposedly lack insight, are WAY more aware of any judgement, lack of acceptance, compassion and respect that is transmitted in our voiceless communication than the average 'normal' person; IMHO.  Obviously, people with a psychiatric diagnosis are easily harmed by lack of acceptance and respect; particularly when it is family members and mental health professionals who don't show them loving kindness,   acceptance.  Peter Breggin has said for a therapist to be helpful, the therapist and patient must have a positive regard  for one another.  This is true for all relationships, I believe.


It is not possible to convey any genuine regard and respect for a person, to gain their trust, and develop a therapeutic relationship with a person with a psychiatric diagnosis in a 15 minute 'medication management' appointment.

Why do some psychiatrists seem to have so little regard for the distressed humans they treat?   All that is discussed are the drugs and the effects the drugs may have---there is, in reality no real 'connection' or 'relationship' between the diagnosed and the 'doctor,'  if doling out of prescription drugs is the basis of the relationship.  When communicating by rote, which is what is necessary when doing a 'med check,' it is perfuntory and sterile; although this is considered professional objectivity or distance, it is not necessarily perceived as therapeutic or respectful by the patient.  A psychiatrist's relationship with a patient based on med checks, does not foster trust; at least not in in my own or my son's experience---why would it?  Being a 'mental health' professional of any sort, does not mean that those who come to you do not need you, the professional, to actually earn trust!  The fact is, I have met so many who seem to have the notion that being 'the professional' is all that is required, and seem to believe that having a medical license should be enough to magically inspire a person's trust and garnt unquestioning confidence in their professional authority; it is not.   


If the patient does not believe they are heard, or even feel as if the professional listened to them when they complain about the negative effects of the drugs prescribed, and the complaints voiced are minimized or dismissed altogether, this naturally breeds mistrust.   People with a psychiatric diagnosis who are also labeled with a lack insight are aware when their doctor does this, and when a doctor acts as if they are not important enough to listen to, they will logically assume it is due to a lack of respect for them.  The fact is, every person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia I have ever met was in fact cognizant of an almost universal lack of respect and lack of positive regard of mental health professionals which is apparently considered acceptable among bio-psychiatry devotees in the mental health treatment field; it is definitely pervasive. Apparently, because of the assumption that people with certain diagnoses lack insight, it is considered acceptable practice to minimize or disregard complaints; to not really pay attention to their subjective experiences, or value  the patients' understanding of what "the problem" is.  As a result, the necessity of trying to  develop a therapeutic relationship with them based on mutual respect and positive regard is not even considered or attempted.  It is more than strange to say the least, that people who are diagnoised with conditions that are poorly defined, and not very well understood, in such a negative manner. 

The main purpose the additional label of anosognosia appears to serve is being used as a justification for  treating those lableled with it as if they are less than worthy of being heard, understood, or even listened to, because after all, they don't know what they are talking about, they lack insight...This supposed lack of insight psychiatry has attached is used as an excuse to continue to prescribe the teratogenic drugs which the patients say cause them harm, and some say do not help them at all. It is used to convince their loved ones that they must help to coerce treatment compliance, and must also mimimize and dismiss complaints, i.e. don't listen to or even believe the person with the diagnosis.  The anosognosia label serves to inform the uninformed in the general public.  Once one believes that people who have certain psychiatric diagnoses are also lacking insight, they will then be less likely to listen to a person in distress, accept and/or have positive regard for the person, they will be biased by their belief the person has no insight, and will become more likely to dismiss and disregard the person.  The label is, in a manner of speaking, a gaslighting of an entire group of people; that encourages people to automatically dismiss anything the person says if a patient with the diagnosis says the drugs make them sick, or cause them to feel traumatized, unable to function---because after all, according to the experts those are just the unpleasant but tolerable side effects of necessary medical treatment. No matter what, drugs are to be taken---even by those who are not experiencing an appreciable reduction in symptoms that justifies the inherent serious risks of taking the teratogenic drugs.  It is this way the people that psychiatry claims have the additional diagnostic label of anosognosia, are effectively de-voiced; and are  denied any choice. The patient's perspective is not considered at all, nor are the direct detrimental effects of the drugs, or the detrimental effects of a professional's lack of respect, positive regard, and lack of compassion for the person to whom they are treating.


Psychiatry according to the medical model, does not acknowledge that these drugs do not actually help a significant percentage of those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, (or other diagnoses!)  It is psychiatry that will not redact fraudulently conducted or reported research from it's professional journals.   The lack of scientific standards and medical ethics is evidence of the lack of respect and positive regard for people diagnosed as mentally ill whom they serve, and who are presumably to benefit from their expert treatment.  This lack of respect emanates from this biomedical attitudinal bias, it is the root cause of, and the very source of the stigma of a psychiatric diagnosis.  It is attached to the psychiatric diagnostic label; it begins when a diagnosis is bestowed as a life sentence: you have a disease with no cure, you just don't know it because you lack insight. Psychiatry has been using it for well over a hundred years: e.g. you have a disease or defect that requires medical treatment with neurotoxic drugs, and electrical shocks, have only replaced psycho-surgery, insulin comas, ice-water baths.  The thing is, the claim has, intentionally or not, always serves to justify treating people as less than fully human, or worthy of ordinary civility, respect, and human compassion;  and it still does. 

The outright falsehoods about symptoms of distress and behavioral difficulties has been taught to society by the 'professionals,' along with the lies about what is and is not known about the drugs themselves.  This is how stigma became entrenched in our society with the distorted 'psycho-education' which psychiatry provided as a public service.  In spite of these falsehoods being recognized and are now 'common knowledge,' the biomedical devotees in psychiatry are arrogant and defensive; unwilling to acknowledge that the source of any mistrust of psychiatry as a profession is a direct result of their own outrageous, entrenched biases and their arrogant, irresponsible, and unethical behavior.   In light of the academic and financial fraud and the Real World Outcomes of their victimized patients, this mistrust is entirely justified.


This is a profession who seemingly does not understand that if a person wishes to be trusted, the individual must be trustworthy; a medical license does not in fact confer trustworthiness; it only authorizes the individual to practice medicine.  If a profession wants to be trusted, ethical and moral standards must be adhered to; mistakes made need to be acknowledged, consequences experienced and corrective action taken.  Being trustworthy does not require perfection.   It requires being willing to admit when you are wrong, and understanding that you are only the patient's partner/assistant/guide/healer with an ethical duty to serve the patient; including being able to admit when you do not know something.  One needs to encourage hope and  independence; or more accurately, a healthy interdependence.  Declarations that a diagnosis is indicitive of  disease accompanied by implied inter-personal superiority and an abusing one's medical authority, are behaviors not worthy of trust. Heavy reliance upon consensus, subjective opinions, anecdotal evidence and one's innate biases serves to discourage and inhibit a patient's chances for healing and achieving s ustained emotional growth; it fosters and unhealthy dependence upon others, and encourages a self-stigmatizing negative sense of self-worth.  It is anathema to the role of a healer.  


It should be obvious, but there can be no trust built or ethical care provided without being honest and forthright.  Telling the truth to your 'patient' and their family about the the diagnosis given, the drugs or any 'treatment' that you recommend, and letting them make an informed choice because you are the 'doctor' and being ethical and honest,  have given them all of the factual based information needed, and suport them if they desire to seek someone else's advice.  It is not appropriate or ethical for you to tell a patient or parent of a child what to do---unless asked.  It is not ethical to mislead them about any drug's potential benefits nor is it ethical to neglect to tell them the inherent risks.  Coercion, manipulation and force are not 'therapeutic,' nor are veiled threats of locking up a patient to gain medication compliance acceptable, it is abuse of power and authority---it is not medical treatment or therapeutic in any sense.   It is a psychiatrist's ethical duty to support and educate a patient; to edify them, encourage them and to treat them with respect, having a kind and positive regard for a patient in order to be helpful.  If a psychiatrist is incapable of doing this, he/she is a doctor who must be stopped; because this type of failure causes injuries which last a lifetime, and often has a lasting, devastating impact for generations...


Psychiatry as a profession will not regain respect or be trusted until: 


1. It is 'standard practice' to respect and protect the Human Rights of those who are labeled 'mentally ill.'


2. It is 'standard practice' to follow the "Medical Ethics Guidelines for Informed Consent" for ALL diagnoses and patients!  No excuses!


3. It is 'standard practice' to tell the truth to patients and about patients to others, when necessary. (police and courts)   Your duty is to the patient, not their parents, or any one else who is distressed by them and wants to confine them!


4. Psychiatry stops disseminating inaccurate information and bio-medical propaganda through advocacy groups' education and information campaigns, and public service activities; people need facts, not fallacies!  It has bred fear, intolerance and discrimination against people given a psychiatric diagnoses; causing further harm and social isolation more than anything else.


5. Stop conducting 'research' and 'clinical trials' the primary purpose of which is not to help, heal or treat patients; but to expand the drug market---if it is not for an ethical, medical or therapeutic purpose, and primarily to benefit the patient, it is not medicine; but marketing!


6.  Conduct and report research ethically, completely and accurately---


7.  Teach students of psychiatry an accurate history of psychiatry and the use of drugs and electroshock.  Unless psychiatry students are taught an accurate history of this 'medical specialty' any changes are doomed to be superficial and cosmetic.  Specifically, psychiatrists should not be taught that coercion, manipulation and social control of others is 'therapeutic treatment!'


It was for the practice of eugenics that these techniques became 'standard practice.'    It was acceptable to mislead and misinform any patient or family member about both the diagnosis and the treatment of 'mental illness,' because based on ignorance and bigotry, 'mental illness' was perceived to be  definitive  evidence of a genetic inferiority which should be extinguished.  Those who were physically or cognitively 'defective' or diagnosed 'mentally ill' were treated as less than human, by psychiatrists.   While there are psychiatrists today who do not and have never held such views, the fact that they were trained in school to use  'standard practices' which were developed by people who very much believed in the inferiority of people diagnosed 'mentally ill.'   Historically, psychiatry like any profession, developed practices based on the what was being done in clinical practice.  In this country from the late 1800s up into the 50s and 60s lobotomy, sterilization, water torture,  insulin coma, electroshock were all considered effective 'treatment' or a 'standard practice' and psychiatry 'treated' those in their care without regard for their dignity or humanity.  It is psychiatry that used these ideas to formulate public policy.  The historical record is shocking for medicine in general, what I find disturbing is the fact that there is so little NEED for those who practice psychiatry to even be taught an accurate history, or even examine exactly what the facts are.   


Some things are indefensible.   I personally find it reprehensible that a profession which has allowed it's members to abuse, coerce, and forcefully "treat/torture" and further stigmatize patients by telling the world they have brain defects; and additionally, they have no idea what is 'good for them' (or they would take their medicine!)  Psychiatry has been instumental in the effort to implement laws and public policies which deny psychiatric patients any human dignity and any hope for a better life.  How can it be in any person's 'best interest' to deny them their Constitutional Rights---which are Human Rights---how is this 'therapeutic' or 'necessary medical treatment' to strip a person of their Human rights with a diagnosis?  It is within the biomedical model the idea that the people who are given a diagnostic label are less than fully human, and don't need their rights protected.


Psychiatry fails to hold members  to any ethical, moral or legal standards, in research, education, and direct clinical care.  APA members inexplicably cling to the delusion that because psychiatry is a 'medical' profession, everything that is done in Standard Practice is actually ethical and necessary to 'medical treatment.'   The fatal outcomes and the traumatized and disabled survivors are evidence that this is not in fact the case.


The fact that many are in fact living in permanent disability with horrible conditions, due to receiving 'psychiatric treatment' which amounted to inhumane traumatizing abuse is cavalierly dismissed as, "Scientology" or  "anti-psychiatry propaganda" yet never respectfully addressed, nor are the dead or disabled even acknowledged---less than humans---need no acknowledgement.    


I am just a mother, who has seen my child, a victim of violent crime; be further traumatized by dangerous drugs in massive doses---drugs not approved for children and every time it was a psychiatrist, not a Scientologist, or antipsychiatrist who prescribed the drugs which did the corporeal  and psychic damage.  Every time it was a psychiatrist who told me the lies and used analogies substituted for facts, it was always a psychiatrist who has questioned why I have no respect for their 'authority.'   I am a mother who willingly takes care of my precious son, who is now a disabled young man; but was once upon a time, my little boy.   I love him beyond measure.  It is he and I who have memories of separation, isolation, degradation, and invalidation which are the traumatic experiences of Standard Practices used by psychiatry.


If psychiatry wants to be respected and trusted, psychiatrists need to do what any and everybody else does. Psychiatrists like anybody and everybody else, must actually earn trust and respect; neither are issued with a diploma or medical license.  Psychiatrists need to act honorably, respect those who seek help, and be accountable.   Telling the truth helps make all these things possible.   Lying is not acceptable--to mislead, or fail to fully inform about either the risks or potential benefits of a prescribed treatment is unethical.  To misinform, mislead, coerce, manipulate, or force harmful drugs or ECT with real risk of permanent disability and sudden or decades early death---after the profession has been misinforming everybody about the actual nature of the diagnoses themselves, and the safety and efficacy of the neurotoxic drugs--is fraud, not medical treatment.  The drugs used to treat the symptoms of distress and emotional trauma, which are often the effects of ignorance, poverty, and all types of abuse and other environmental influences, are no panacea, the psychiatrists who claim to be treating 'diseases' by force if necessary, are committing medical fraud; there is no place for fraud in medical practice.


Dismissive patronizing attitudes, manipulation and coercion as  'standard practices' were developed during the several decades of the psychiatric profession 'medically treating' the 'genetically inferior' by practicing eugenics in State Institutions and social services.  Some of the standard practices, attitudes and 'widely accepted wisdom' prevalent in bio-psychiatry today, originated during the widespread eugenics movement from this era; and were accepted then due to the ignorant notion that subjective observation was evidence of genetic inferiority.  Individuals who were labeled genetically inferior, with a 'brain disease' were considered unworthy of respect, or humane treatment.  People with psychiatric diagnoses led miserable existences in which abuse and torture were considered 'treatment' in State run facilities; and this 'medical treatment' was provided by psychiatrists...


It is this type of treatment that was forced upon my son, I am a witness, and I am a mother who could not rescue my son fast enough.  It took years for me to believe my friends who told me I need to forgive myself.  That it is not my fault, I am not the one who beat him or abused him---in my heart, I failed because my son was harmed so very badly and I couldn't stop it; it still has not stopped...

I am insulted when a person says I should be proud for not walking away from him, for not giving up.   It is the only option I have.   He is my son.  I love him. 

Why are force, coercion, manipulation, and lying to those diagnosed and about those diagnosed to their families, and the general public considered acceptable by the members of the APA?  If the drugs are so safe and effective, why are people being disabled, and dying from illnesses and sudden death as a direct reselt of taking the drugs?    More importantly, if psychiatric drugs are so very safe and effective, why is so much fraud, illegal marketing and dishonesty necessary to practice psychiatric 'medicine'?   Why is it necessary to take children away when a parent exercises their Parental Rights to make decisions for their own flesh and blood?   It is because psychiatrists who are devotees of the biomedical madness believe as one psychiatrist told me, "Parents who objected to medical treatment they would see as at best ill informed and at worst impaired themselves." This is why psychiatrists have felt themselves justified and have purposely mislead, and outright lied to everybody. A belief that anyone who doesn't recognize their superior brains and apparently their psychic abilities; is either simply 'misinformed' or IMPAIRED. This quote is from a psychiatrist who is a 'Human Rights activist.'

If psychiatry is no longer practicing eugenics; and a diagnosis of  'mental illness' is just like any other illness, because the people who are diagnosed are not genetically inferior; and psychiatry is practicing medicine; why is psychiatry still using the same 'standard practices' developed when psychiaty was practicing medicine by implementing eugenics as a Standard of Care?   Just as importantly, why are subterfuge, academic fraud, financial corruption, illegal marketing, and court orders necessary; but Informed Consent for 'treatment' is NOT required, and barely paid lip service?   I do have a biased, but I believe understandable view.  It is based on the ten psychiatrists who all misinformed, and all of them apparently had no ethical qualms about the harm done by their ethical, diagnostic and treatment failure...


How is the modern biomedical model of psychiatric practice different from what the Germans did in the 30s and 40s?   I see no difference myself.   I know I have to this day, never been respected by any of the psychiatrists who have harmed my son, and would not allow me to protect my own child.  I will not stop trying to help my son recover, or stop protecting him as best I can from an under-recognized pathology. 


I call it pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis.  A diagnosis that is characterized by delusions and grandiosity particularly, a belief in one's superior intellect, and one's innate ability to determine what another person can tolerate in terms of physical and psychic trauma.  People with this diagnosis are emotionally capaple sociopaths, with an ability to commit crimes without guilt and use of coercion, seclusion, chemical lobotomies, and give Electrical Shocks to gain behavioral compliance.   These crimes committed by psychiatrists with pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis, are medically necessary.   The people who have pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis can diagnose a disease in anyone's brain by simply looking at them and talking to people who are unhappy about the patient's behavior...Is that a skill or what!  To be able to pull a disease out of a collection of subjective observations, like a magician pulls a rabbit from a hat, that is mighty handy!  I wonder if these psychiatrists demand respect bucause their diagnosis of pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis, allows them to know there is no way in hell they can earn it.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santanyana

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."  

John F. Kennedy

'When a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm."  Hippocrates


first posted with the title, 'If Mental Illness is Like Any Other Why Don't We Court Order Exercise?' on July 19, 2011
picture found at  mentalhealthstigma.com