Anti-Psychiatry: A tool to ensare the gullible?

[Scifinerdgrl]

Scientology is the most obvious example, but there are other anti-psychiatry pseudo-scientific charlatans roping in the gullible. And they probably do get good results with lonely neurotics who believe they can buy happiness. Somehow these conspiracy theorists manage to find people who haven't heard of the placebo effect. Holding their hands, telling them their problems are due to some outside influence, "curing" them for a fee, and telling them that "traditional" doctors don't know squat is a time-tested formula. The new cannard is that because of overprescription of some meds given to neurotics and addicts, psychiatry as a field is the true sham.

Likewise, smearing the DSM-IV is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Other specialties have less trouble standardizing care because those diseases are more clear-cut. Other disorders of systems, such as diabetes & allergies, can be tested more easily. Psychiatric disorders will probably eventually have better diagnostics via brain scans, but currently the diagnosis has to be based on symptoms, so the DSM-IV standardizes that procedure. I admire psychiatry for its willingness to create a tool like that and to continue updating it as new evidence emerges.

Scientology & homeopathy offer magic "cures" based on untested, untestable, mysterious methods that are paper-thin shams with one goal: relieving neurotics of their disposable income.

[john_v_h]

Choir: Amen.

However, there are different ways to affect a brain. Pharmaceutical intervention is just one of them. It's up to each person to decide how she wants to undertake brain alteration, to weight the benefits and risks of each method, and to judge the possibility of a successful outcome.

Of course, like you I am heavily prejudiced toward methods which have been scientifically proven to yield positive results.

[Don Alhambra]

I spent some time staying at a psychiatrists's house recently, and had a conversation with him about this very topic. He thinks that one of the reasons the anti-psychiatry movement is so prevalent these days (as we see time and time again in this forum) is due to the generally observed negative trend in trst is professionals of all types in the last 40 years. This is not necessarily a bad thing; it's arguably better than treating doctors as omniscient deities who can do no wrong. But one of the consequences is that people are much more willing to challenge the word of 'experts' in general.

Couple this with what I'm going to call 'negative treatment result self-publication bias'. People for whom psychiatric drugs or other therapies have not improved their condition or made it worse are much more likely to complain loudly, go to the papers telling them the drugs have ruined their life, or set up a support network/website as a 'psychiatry survivor' than people for whom the treatment has been lifesaving or made them able to function in normal society. How often do you hear people shouting 'I was schizophrenic, but my regular doses of medication have made my delusions much more manageable'? It's just not the way things work.

Finally there's the general credulity of many people who are all too willing to believe in conspiracies about psychiatrists controlling people's minds or drugging the population through some secret plan only talked about in secret meetings at the highest levels of government. Taken together, I reckon all these things account very well for the proliferation of anti-psychiatry bollocks we see today.

A couple of reasons why these conspiracy theories come to nothing:

1) I'm currently writing up my PhD in neuroscience. From the literature I've read, I know of no mechanism by which a population could be comprehensively medicated to produce the kind of effects the conspiracy theorists go on about. We simply don't know enough about how things work to be able to do anything like that.

2) It is incredible how, given the general uselessness of governments at rather a lot of things, that they would manage to hush something like this up. Leaks are always happening, and anyone with an ounce of sense or moral fibre who got hold of this would see it printed on the front page of the daily newpapers before the ink had dried.

[Newton's Cat]

Scientology is the most obvious example, but there are other anti-psychiatry pseudo-scientific charlatans roping in the gullible. And they probably do get good results with lonely neurotics who believe they can buy happiness. Somehow these conspiracy theorists manage to find people who haven't heard of the placebo effect. Holding their hands, telling them their problems are due to some outside influence, "curing" them for a fee, and telling them that "traditional" doctors don't know squat is a time-tested formula. The new cannard is that because of overprescription of some meds given to neurotics and addicts, psychiatry as a field is the true sham.

Likewise, smearing the DSM-IV is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Other specialties have less trouble standardizing care because those diseases are more clear-cut. Other disorders of systems, such as diabetes & allergies, can be tested more easily. Psychiatric disorders will probably eventually have better diagnostics via brain scans, but currently the diagnosis has to be based on symptoms, so the DSM-IV standardizes that procedure. I admire psychiatry for its willingness to create a tool like that and to continue updating it as new evidence emerges.

Scientology & homeopathy offer magic "cures" based on untested, untestable, mysterious methods that are paper-thin shams with one goal: relieving neurotics of their disposable income.

So the plans to arrange for a database detailing the mental health of every American citizen are to be admired - and pose no threat to society?

In 2001 a British researcher claimed to have developed a brain-scanning technique that could detect schizophrenia at the sub-clinical stage. He gave a press conference in which he suggested that ALL young people should be tested - and, because schizophrenia is a "progressive" illness, if his test "diagnosed" schizophrenia medication should be compulsory.

Mental health is a vitally important issue - maybe all politicians should volunteer themselves for testing?

Let psychiatrists run the show - the DSM-IV is a gift from God that has the capability of creating heaven on Earth - a world free of mental disease!

Mental-illness does not exist - as it is defined by mainstream psychiatry.

Mental distress obviously most certainly does - the question is "What is the cause?"

There is very little hard evidence that 90%+ of mental illness has a biological origin - though once the "illness" (the belief state or state of existential stress) has taken a hold major biochemical changes do occur (sometimes causing permanent physical disruption of the brain chemistry and structural changes in the brain).

WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF MENTAL ILLNESS??????

My opinion is - in a great majority of cases - childhood experiences (especially at the hands of the "significant others" in the child's life, and, more subtly, influences from one's ancestral background).

Please don't call me a Scientologist - almost every one I've ever met was a nutter! Hubbard was a very skilled madman.

Finally - the major cause of mental health problems in later life is the influence in childhood of parents, teachers, religious figures, and other's who engage in "inappropriate attitudes of authority".

Psychological abuse of developing infants minds is not unheard of - in fact its rather commonplace.

Most mental ilness is not initially generated by biologically inherited or congenital factors.

Lets have a good argument about this, eh?

When I go to a doctor, on the front cover of my mental records there is the word SCHIZOPHRENIA. The psychiatrists' opinions about me from 1962-4 have been moved to the front and notes made on them.

It may have something to do with the fact that I was a patient of David Cooper - who later termed himself an anti-psychiatrist. He and his colleagues were of the opinion that "childhood" is the main cause of schizophrenia. (Yeah, I know - Cooper himself later went mad)

[Newton's Cat]

I spent some time staying at a psychiatrists's house recently, and had a conversation with him about this very topic. He thinks that one of the reasons the anti-psychiatry movement is so prevalent these days (as we see time and time again in this forum) is due to the generally observed negative trend in trst is professionals of all types in the last 40 years. This is not necessarily a bad thing; it's arguably better than treating doctors as omniscient deities who can do no wrong. But one of the consequences is that people are much more willing to challenge the word of 'experts' in general.

Couple this with what I'm going to call 'negative treatment result self-publication bias'. People for whom psychiatric drugs or other therapies have not improved their condition or made it worse are much more likely to complain loudly, go to the papers telling them the drugs have ruined their life, or set up a support network/website as a 'psychiatry survivor' than people for whom the treatment has been lifesaving or made them able to function in normal society. How often do you hear people shouting 'I was schizophrenic, but my regular doses of medication have made my delusions much more manageable'? It's just not the way things work.

Finally there's the general credulity of many people who are all too willing to believe in conspiracies about psychiatrists controlling people's minds or drugging the population through some secret plan only talked about in secret meetings at the highest levels of government. Taken together, I reckon all these things account very well for the proliferation of anti-psychiatry bollocks we see today.

A couple of reasons why these conspiracy theories come to nothing:

1) I'm currently writing up my PhD in neuroscience. From the literature I've read, I know of no mechanism by which a population could be comprehensively medicated to produce the kind of effects the conspiracy theorists go on about. We simply don't know enough about how things work to be able to do anything like that.

2) It is incredible how, given the general uselessness of governments at rather a lot of things, that they would manage to hush something like this up. Leaks are always happening, and anyone with an ounce of sense or moral fibre who got hold of this would see it printed on the front page of the daily newpapers before the ink had dried.

Do you agree that "emotional distress" in childhood can bring about structural and biochemical changes in the human brain? The hippocampus seems to particularly prone to this effect.

Neuropsychologists and forensic psychiatrists seem to me to be a cut above the average "trick cyclist" as far as their understanding of this horrendously complex issue is concerned.

[Ojuice5001]

By all means let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. But surely there is bathwater to throw out, valid criticisms that are made by the anti-psychiatry people. Case in point: the reliance of mainstream psychiatry on prescribing drugs.

It's a common impression among laymen that a drug like Ritalin or Prozac amounts to treating an undesirable mood as if it were abnormal, when it would be better to think of it as the maladjusted workings of normal psychology. Boys will be boys: preteen boys are prone to feel restless, and middle-aged women (stereotypes, I know) are prone to feel depressed. Is it really surprising that these drugs meet with only moderate success? Even if they're taking the pills their doctor ordered, they still live in a highly regulated society; they're living in conditions for which restlessness or depression are rather appropriate responses. Of course restlessness (hyperactivity) and depression are still going to be problems.

So psychiatrists tend to treat their drugs as a panacea, even when they aren't effective. And even if they are effective, is that really the best solution? To keep on spending our days in a regimented school or workplace, but take drugs to cope with it better? Prescription drugs can end up being the opium of the masses just as much as religion or illegal drugs like opium.

And when the anti-psychiatrists try to explain how the medical establishment got into such a state, they place the blame squarely on the profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies and their extensive economic influence on the whole process. It looks to me as if they're right in this criticism as well...

[anthrosciguy]

By all means let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. But surely there is bathwater to throw out, valid criticisms that are made by the anti-psychiatry people. Case in point: the reliance of mainstream psychiatry on prescribing drugs.


I think this is akin to saying that creationists and ID proponents have valid points because they say that evolutionary theories don't explain everything, have some errors, etc. The statement is in one sense true, but implies (rather heavily) that these problems are not being addressed, and cannot be addressed, without accepting their own incredibly dubious beliefs. The points are being addressed, and can be addressed, through science rather than accepting pseudoscience. Because the stopped clock is right twice a day (or once if its a 24-hour clock -- or Tom Cruise) does not mean it should be relied upon to tell time, or that its methods (just stop those hands!) should be employed.

[Ojuice5001]

I suppose so, anthrosciguy. I don't know that much about what Scientologists and their ilk are proposing instead of mainstream psychiatry.

I was thinking more of the ideas of people like Thomas Szasz--the idea that the concept of mental illness is in need of reevaluation. I don't question that there are mental illnesses, but it does seem that the category tends to expand beyond its proper bounds. For instance, it's been only a few decades since homosexuality was considered a mental illness. There are people on the autism spectrum who voice their opposition to the idea of using the language of "disease" and "cure" when talking about autism. And it's pretty worrying to see that a sizable number of atheists on this board, down in GRD, are willing to seriously argue that believers in supernaturalism and religion are delusional and/or mentally ill. :worried:

[miss anthrope]

So the plans to arrange for a database detailing the mental health of every American citizen are to be admired - and pose no threat to society?

In 2001 a British researcher claimed to have developed a brain-scanning technique that could detect schizophrenia at the sub-clinical stage. He gave a press conference in which he suggested that ALL young people should be tested - and, because schizophrenia is a "progressive" illness, if his test "diagnosed" schizophrenia medication should be compulsory.

Mental health is a vitally important issue - maybe all politicians should volunteer themselves for testing?

Let psychiatrists run the show - the DSM-IV is a gift from God that has the capability of creating heaven on Earth - a world free of mental disease!

Mental-illness does not exist - as it is defined by mainstream psychiatry.

Mental distress obviously most certainly does - the question is "What is the cause?"

There is very little hard evidence that 90%+ of mental illness has a biological origin - though once the "illness" (the belief state or state of existential stress) has taken a hold major biochemical changes do occur (sometimes causing permanent physical disruption of the brain chemistry and structural changes in the brain).

WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF MENTAL ILLNESS??????

My opinion is - in a great majority of cases - childhood experiences (especially at the hands of the "significant others" in the child's life, and, more subtly, influences from one's ancestral background).

Please don't call me a Scientologist - almost every one I've ever met was a nutter! Hubbard was a very skilled madman.

Finally - the major cause of mental health problems in later life is the influence in childhood of parents, teachers, religious figures, and other's who engage in "inappropriate attitudes of authority".

Psychological abuse of developing infants minds is not unheard of - in fact its rather commonplace.

Most mental ilness is not initially generated by biologically inherited or congenital factors.



What do you mean by "inappropriate attitudes of authority"? I'm pretty certain what comes to my mind is not what you meant, so would you please explain? And what do you consider psychological abuse of infants, since you say it is commonplace?

Though I'm not entirely certain what it is you claim is the source of mental illness, I have a feeling I disagree with you. While DNA doesn't equal destiny, it does influence our behavior and overall health. DNA codes the receptors on our neuron cells and directs certain tissue to produce hormones. The phenotype may be fairly plastic, but it may not be.

Finding fault with anti-psychiatry movements does not automatically mean blindly following "the establishment" or being willing to relinquish the right to privacy to support a database detailing the mental health of every American.
Out of curiousity, what happened to the British researcher you described? Do psychiatrists encourage parents to have their teenagers scanned? Or did psychologists and psychiatrists become upset with his recomendation of testing ALL teenagers?

[anthrosciguy]

I suppose so, anthrosciguy. I don't know that much about what Scientologists and their ilk are proposing instead of mainstream psychiatry.


They believe that simply clearing the thetans from your body that are the result of the "ruler of the 'Galactic Confederacy' who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living." The souls are the body thetans who cause all your problems -- isn't it obvious?

[Scifinerdgrl]

2) It is incredible how, given the general uselessness of governments at rather a lot of things, that they would manage to hush something like this up. Leaks are always happening, and anyone with an ounce of sense or moral fibre who got hold of this would see it printed on the front page of the daily newpapers before the ink had dried.

I've been a city & state employee, and only briefly a federal employee. But... I live in DC and I know lots of federal employees. There's no fricking way the federal government could do the bizarre things the conspiracy theorists claim. It's just not competent enough! :p

[Scifinerdgrl]

So the plans to arrange for a database detailing the mental health of every American citizen are to be admired - and pose no threat to society?

The DSM-IV is no such thing. It's a diagnostic tool.

In 2001 a British researcher claimed to have developed a brain-scanning technique that could detect schizophrenia at the sub-clinical stage. He gave a press conference in which he suggested that ALL young people should be tested - and, because schizophrenia is a "progressive" illness, if his test "diagnosed" schizophrenia medication should be compulsory.

One British researcher who says something you don't like is a conspiracy... yet one crackpot who publishes an anti-psychiatry diatribe only has the public's best interest at heart. This is the kind of faulty thinking the OP is about -- conspiracy theories based on slim evidence while ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the correlary is trust in total bunk based on even slimmer evidence and even more overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Let psychiatrists run the show - the DSM-IV is a gift from God that has the capability of creating heaven on Earth - a world free of mental disease!

What show? It's a diagnostic tool created by humans, which will probably be revised in the future based on new research. The result is more consistent standards of care.

Mental-illness does not exist - as it is defined by mainstream psychiatry.

um.... what? Wouldn't mainstream psychiatry be the most knowledgeable source? They deal with sick people every day. People who have never met a schizophrenic or manic-depressive certainly don't have any justification for expressing their opinion. If someone spends 40+ hours per week with people who see things that aren't there, hear things that aren't there, have trouble sleeping, and want to commit suicide... then thanks to their training and reading of research in the field they are able to relieve suffering, imho that's a good thing.

There is very little hard evidence that 90%+ of mental illness has a biological origin

What about the genetic probability that the child of a schizophrenic has a 10x chance of coming down with schizophrenia and the well-known genetic predisposition for manic depression. DNA is what you might call "biological."

My opinion is - in a great majority of cases - childhood experiences (especially at the hands of the "significant others" in the child's life, and, more subtly, influences from one's ancestral background).

Very Freudian of you. Your "opinion" is based on what? Some thinking? Some

Please don't call me a Scientologist - almost every one I've ever met was a nutter! Hubbard was a very skilled madman.

You sound like a nutter, though. What makes you an expert in the field? So far you've just expressed some opinions without anything to back them up. There's nothing scientifically valid in your post, just opinion.

When I go to a doctor, on the front cover of my mental records there is the word SCHIZOPHRENIA. The psychiatrists' opinions about me from 1962-4 have been moved to the front and notes made on them.

And in 40+ years psychiatry has come a long way. Your personal experience has nothing to do with anyone's case other than your own.

It may have something to do with the fact that I was a patient of David Cooper - who later termed himself an anti-psychiatrist. He and his colleagues were of the opinion that "childhood" is the main cause of schizophrenia. (Yeah, I know - Cooper himself later went mad)

Very good reason to be anti-David Cooper. I'm not convinced about other psychiatrists or the field as a whole.

[Scifinerdgrl]

By all means let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. But surely there is bathwater to throw out, valid criticisms that are made by the anti-psychiatry people. Case in point: the reliance of mainstream psychiatry on prescribing drugs.

Yes, self-correction will occur based on many factors. This is completely different from Scientology or New Age sewage, which is not based on scientific observation. But.... psychiatric illness is largely chemical in nature, so of course chemistry is going to be key to treating disease. Not using drugs to treat schizophrenia or manic-depression is like not using insulin to treat diabetes.

It's a common impression among laymen that a drug like Ritalin or Prozac amounts to treating an undesirable mood as if it were abnormal

You can't really blame psychiatrists on this. Many of these prescriptions are written by general practitioners, and at the urging of the patients. If a patient has depressive symptoms and refuses to see a psychiatrist or consider psychotherapy what is a GP to do? Likewise, if a parent won't settle for a "boys will be boys" answer, the doctor knows they'll just keep trying different doctors until they get the answer they like.

So psychiatrists tend to treat their drugs as a panacea, even when they aren't effective. And even if they are effective, is that really the best solution?

If it keeps a schizophrenic, depressive, or manic depressive from killing themselves or others, keeps them functioning in society, then YES!!!! Absolutely!!!!

You say these things as if there are alternate solutions to all mental illnesses. There aren't! Lithium for manic-depression is really the only treatment that has ever been proven to work.

To keep on spending our days in a regimented school or workplace, but take drugs to cope with it better? Prescription drugs can end up being the opium of the masses just as much as religion or illegal drugs like opium.

You're talking about people who are well taking a drug they don't need. That probably isn't happening to the extent that the anti-psychiatry movement claims. Most drugs have some side-effect, which people won't tolerate unless they're getting a huge benefit from it.

And when the anti-psychiatrists try to explain how the medical establishment got into such a state, they place the blame squarely on the profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies and their extensive economic influence on the whole process. It looks to me as if they're right in this criticism as well...

I agree that the pharmaceutical companies are greedy. Lifting the ban on advertising for medicine was a mistake imho. It has people running to doctors for all kinds of prescriptions they don't need. Often an OTC or generic drug is just as good as the expensive antacid that looks so effective in the commercial.

[Scifinerdgrl]

I was thinking more of the ideas of people like Thomas Szasz--the idea that the concept of mental illness is in need of reevaluation. I don't question that there are mental illnesses, but it does seem that the category tends to expand beyond its proper bounds. For instance, it's been only a few decades since homosexuality was considered a mental illness.

...which proves that psychiatrists are amenable to improvements in their understanding of mental illness. This is in contrast to Scientology, which has changed the targets of its attacks a few times but still insists that the cause of emotional distress (they won't accept anyone with a serious mental illness) are disembodied souls released by a volcano thousands of years ago, and who offer a type of exorcism... for a hefty fee.

There are people on the autism spectrum who voice their opposition to the idea of using the language of "disease" and "cure" when talking about autism.

Only someone who has never met a true autistic person could question whether it's a disease. You can call it something else, but there's no way you could say it's a mere variation on "normal."

And it's pretty worrying to see that a sizable number of atheists on this board, down in GRD, are willing to seriously argue that believers in supernaturalism and religion are delusional and/or mentally ill. :worried:

My schizophrenic brother is an atheist. :p

[Christina Mirabilis]

Not that I think all religious folks are mentally ill, but it is my catch-all line for getting rid of jehovah's witnesses. I just politely explain that if I tell my doctor that I've taken up a new hobby that includes following the laws of an all-powerful white guy in the sky that I can't see, she's going to put me on some seriously nasty meds.

[Scifinerdgrl]

Not that I think all religious folks are mentally ill, but it is my catch-all line for getting rid of jehovah's witnesses. I just politely explain that if I tell my doctor that I've taken up a new hobby that includes following the laws of an all-powerful white guy in the sky that I can't see, she's going to put me on some seriously nasty meds.

I think most "revelations" that became religious truths are more likely psychotic episodes.

[Christina Mirabilis]

I know all my 'revelations' definitely were LOL.

[Newton's Cat]

Here's a little story for you:

I visited a severely schizophrenic friend of mine in my local psychiatric ward. She was "acting up" - shouting, talking "nonsense", disrupting the smooth functioning of the ward.

She claimed that she was being attacked by "thousands of fairies" - she kept furiously brushing herself, apparently trying to rid herself of the fairies.

A staff member entered the room, and gave her a "face". She jumped up, brushed herself vigorously, and stamped her feet.

"One squashed fairy," I said.

My friend burst out laughing.

For the rest of the day she was calm and caused no trouble - at least someone knew what was REALLY going on.

'Psychiatry has lost its mind - and with it the minds of its patients.'

Dr David Kaiser (a New York psychiatrist)

I have another female schizophrenic friend who once told to me that she had realised that she had been "wearing her mother's crash helmet all her life".

Figure that one out!

Clue - the tight "band" one sometimes gets around ones head when one is under a lot of stress.

Most mental illness is NOT generated by the sufferer's biology - it has its origins in childhood.

I find it absolutely extraordinary that this obvious fact - supported by a mass of evidence - is being thrown in the wastebin in favour of theories that tens of percentages of the population are biologically "mutant" and should be persuaded to (or compelled to) take medication.

There is NO substantial evidence that mental illness has a biological origin. Hopefully the pack of cards that psychiatry has built up will come tumbling down and SANITY will return.

[Schneibster]

I've been a city & state employee, and only briefly a federal employee. But... I live in DC and I know lots of federal employees. There's no fricking way the federal government could do the bizarre things the conspiracy theorists claim. It's just not competent enough! :pHeh, good luck- I've been telling them that for YEARS.

[dmarker]

By all means let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. But surely there is bathwater to throw out, valid criticisms that are made by the anti-psychiatry people. Case in point: the reliance of mainstream psychiatry on prescribing drugs.

It's a common impression among laymen that a drug like Ritalin or Prozac amounts to treating an undesirable mood as if it were abnormal, when it would be better to think of it as the maladjusted workings of normal psychology. Boys will be boys: preteen boys are prone to feel restless, and middle-aged women (stereotypes, I know) are prone to feel depressed. Is it really surprising that these drugs meet with only moderate success? Even if they're taking the pills their doctor ordered, they still live in a highly regulated society; they're living in conditions for which restlessness or depression are rather appropriate responses. Of course restlessness (hyperactivity) and depression are still going to be problems.

So psychiatrists tend to treat their drugs as a panacea, even when they aren't effective. And even if they are effective, is that really the best solution? To keep on spending our days in a regimented school or workplace, but take drugs to cope with it better? Prescription drugs can end up being the opium of the masses just as much as religion or illegal drugs like opium.

And when the anti-psychiatrists try to explain how the medical establishment got into such a state, they place the blame squarely on the profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies and their extensive economic influence on the whole process. It looks to me as if they're right in this criticism as well...

You don't understand ADD. It is not restlessness. It is the inability to focus and concentrate even if it is something that you are interested in. If you have a class of 25 children and only one is bouncing off the walls, that one may have ADD. If you have a class of 25 children, and they are all bouncing off the walls, then you have restlessness.

I am a 37 year old woman with ADD. I also have anxiety and depression but interestingly enough, all of my symptoms disappear when I take Focalin, the next generation of Ritalin.

Granted over diagnosis of ADD is a problem and no child should be medicated without consultation with someone who has expertise in ADD, but don't ever tell me that my condition is brought on by modern life and that my med is a crutch.

[Don Alhambra]

Most mental illness is NOT generated by the sufferer's biology - it has its origins in childhood.

How do you know that? How do you know that? How can you be so utterly, utterly certain as to post this assertion, without offering any supporting evidence, on a board like this?

Perhaps some mental illness does have origins in childhood. Fine, ok. How would you test this proposition? Please note that whether or not there are origins in childhood, the brain is still a biological organ, and therefore brains which work consistently differently to other brains can be assumed to have something biologically different about them. Whether this is a result of something that started in childhood or not.

I find it absolutely extraordinary that this obvious fact - supported by a mass of evidence - is being thrown in the wastebin in favour of theories that tens of percentages of the population are biologically "mutant" and should be persuaded to (or compelled to) take medication.

Obvious fact? Well, I've never heard it before actually. And it doesn't seem at all obvious to me. But what do I know, I've only been training in the area for three years. Where is your 'mass' of evidence? NB: anecdotal stories don't count. I want peer-reviewed research, or any conclusions drawn are worse than useless.

By the way, your interpretation that 'tens of percentages of the population are biologically mutant' is just wrong. All we can say for sure is that there is evidence to suggest distinct differences in brain structure and function in people who have mental health problems.

There is NO substantial evidence that mental illness has a biological origin. Hopefully the pack of cards that psychiatry has built up will come tumbling down and SANITY will return.

Right... no substantial evidence at all then. Let's do a quick search of PubMed (http://www.pubmed.com) for schizophrenia brain structure and see what we find:

Fronto-cerebellar systems are associated with infant motor and adult executive functions in healthy adults but not in schizophrenia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17028177&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Structural brain abnormalities in early onset first-episode psychosis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17024324&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)
Neurobiology of schizophrenia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17015232&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)
Brain dopamine d1 receptors in twins discordant for schizophrenia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17012685&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)
Early brain development disruption from NMDA receptor hypofunction: Relevance to schizophrenia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17014910&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)

That's just five papers I found on the first two pages. They're all from 2006. What they all have in common is that they clearly show differences in brain structure and function for schizophrenics. You might like the last one especially: it tells of how disruption of early brain development can be linked to later development of schizophrenia.

Your claim of 'no evidence' has been comprehensively quashed, as if you look more and more at the published research you will find that there exists very strong evidence for these differences.

Finally, here's a challenge for you. Below is a list of recognised mental health problems. Which are biological, and which aren't? How do you make your decision? Where do you draw the line?


Traumatic brain injury
Stroke
Parkinson's
Alzheimer's
Epilepsy
Schizophrenia
Manic depression / bipolar disorder
Autistic spectrum disorders (inc. Asperger's)
ADHD / ADD

[whichphilosophy]

Scientology is the most obvious example, but there are other anti-psychiatry pseudo-scientific charlatans roping in the gullible. And they probably do get good results with lonely neurotics who believe they can buy happiness. Somehow these conspiracy theorists manage to find people who haven't heard of the placebo effect. Holding their hands, telling them their problems are due to some outside influence, "curing" them for a fee, and telling them that "traditional" doctors don't know squat is a time-tested formula. The new cannard is that because of overprescription of some meds given to neurotics and addicts, psychiatry as a field is the true sham.

Likewise, smearing the DSM-IV is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Other specialties have less trouble standardizing care because those diseases are more clear-cut. Other disorders of systems, such as diabetes & allergies, can be tested more easily. Psychiatric disorders will probably eventually have better diagnostics via brain scans, but currently the diagnosis has to be based on symptoms, so the DSM-IV standardizes that procedure. I admire psychiatry for its willingness to create a tool like that and to continue updating it as new evidence emerges.

Scientology & homeopathy offer magic "cures" based on untested, untestable, mysterious methods that are paper-thin shams with one goal: relieving neurotics of their disposable income.

Scientology has generally been against compulsory drug treatments, lobotomy (almost now not practiced) ETC and coersive psychiatry.

Anti psychiatry are mainly ex psychiatric patients who call themselves psychiatric survivors. The organisatinos are set up by ex patients for ex-patients. Some agree with Scientology some are anti Scientology or avoid it. There are also some political movements such as Trotskyites (very anti Scientology) but also conservatives and socialists who have over the years been against certain types of treatments in psychiatry.

In other words there are dissident voices from all ends of the spectrum. Anti Psychiatry is therefore a very loose terms involving dozens of movements.

Disagreements about the DSM also stemmed from within the psychiatric profession and there are also books based on this.

The DSM is and never has been about scientific testing to be entered into the manual. The maladies are based on a majority vote by a committee. Some believe this is the best way to decide what is and what is not a mental ilness and others think it is totally wrong.

We know homosexuality was once voted in as a mental illness then due to protests by Gay groups the disorder was then de classified, also by a vote. One women's career disorder was voted in, but when women psychiatrists objected this disorder was also voted out.

The dilemma here is the views in psychiatry and researchers as to what a mental illness is still pretty much fragmented.

As for Schizophrenia, a few years ago the head of research for the APA, Dr Loren Mosher piloted a project (Soteria Project), which he said reduced drug regimens considerably and increased therapy (one to one basis with the patients).

Though in his report the project was a success with treating Schizophrenia through mainly therapy (and drugs if the patient requested or consented) the project was scrapped in the favour of the move towards overall drug treatments.

At the moment we have a situation where more and more lables for disorders are being entered into the DSM which is also a concern.

For instance, Spelling Disorder, Stuttering, Infant Feeding Disorder, Child Sibling Rivalry Disorder, Mathematics Disorder etc.


The question is should individual shortfalls be treated as a disorder.

Today SSRIs that were not so long ago regarded as safe drugs with few side effects are now classified by the FDA as black box drugs. That is to say they are the at the highest risk classification that legal drugs can reach.

As for the causes of mental illness there is certainly a great deal of conflict in this area. Drugs are convenient for suppressing symptoms and there are many who will say these have been beneficial. Others on the other hand will disagree, especially if they have contended with the side effects.

The first and probarbly the most successful double blind testing was for smallpox vaccine.

Of course there are alternative medicines around and some may well be very questionable.

1.700 qualified British doctors now practice Accupuncture and they have their own legal association, which involves a medical licence. BMA

The World Health Organisation has validated dozens of treatments that Accupuncture remedies and this is the first example of TCM beginning to go mainstream.

The WHO in cooperation with TCM institutions are also researching other TCM treatments but because of difficulties in establishing a medium for testing it is pretty slow going.

Now the placebo effect is well known about nowadays. However one factor that should be taken into account before writing off TCM completely is that many patients who have taken this type of treatment and found it to work after sometimes years of conventional medicine with disappointing results (and often after several years with different specialists).

TCM has recognised the different traits in Schizophrenia for some years but treats this as a medical disorder. It will take years to even start trials on the treatments dispensed which are holistic.

As a note, the latest treatment for Malaria approved by Modern Medicine has been taken from Chinese Medicine (validated by the WHO).

While the confusion is going on as to what is or what is not effective we can only keep an open mind or be more tolerent of other's choices of treatments even if they don't suit our own philophy.:wave:

[ConcernedFriend]

Gosh this is such a huge topic. My tuppence worth is that to an extent all these arguments have some merit. I see a number of people who are having a crappy time of it e.g. "My husband beats me, my kids truant school, I can't pay my bills, my house is damp..." and so on- and expect fluoxetine 20mg to take away their misery. In my experience by and large it does not- indeed NOT feeling miserable in these circumstances is abnormal. Fluoxetine (and most of the other antidepressants) won't really help this situation, but benzos might just quiet your mind enough so you don't worry about it as much (until you become tolerant and then dependent, just as with that other great mind-number, ethanol).

Someone with a clinical depression will usually benefit from medication, however. And the most satisfaction I have had as a psychiatrist is actually in using ECT (which actually is usually given WITH consent, but can be used in a dire emergency without consent in the UK) for people with severe stuporose depression- and for those of you who don't believe mental illnesses exist I can think of no better example than someone who is so depressed that they will not eat or drink or move and will lie in their own waste till they simply die- this is NOT a variant of 'normal mood'. IV amitriptyline may well have the same effect if given over a long enough time but for speed of onset of action ECT is a good treatment and I have seen it save lives.

Someone hinted above at patients 'pretending to be mad'- and actually by and large we aren't as stupid as we look- we're usually quite good at knowing when someone genuinely is hallucinating/ delusional, but I have to say that I have a (smallish) cohort of patients who hang on to their psychiatric label tooth and nail, even when I think they are mentally well, because there are secondary gains to be made from it, e.g. sickness benefit.

From a UK point of view sometimes medication is the only realistic treatment on offer- the waiting list for CBT around these parts is at least one year. For psychodynamic psychotherapy the waiting list is very variable- about a year ago it was only a month or two for your initial psychotherapy assessment, now it stands at about 6 months for the initial assessment and then a further six or so months before the actual therapy starts. I do strongly feel however that even in an ideal world in which I could get all my patients a talking therapy the next day there would still be a role for medication (and ECT) in psychiatry. Another overlapping area is where the interface of physical and mental disorder occurs- in the past year alone I have seen lots of physical illness masquerade as psychiatric illness, e.g. normal pressure hydrocephalus, brain tumour, pneumonia (I don't think the first doctor to see this patient thought to lay a stethoscope on his chest!), hyperthyroidism and so on. It's in cases like this that the general medical training comes in handy.

[fließendes]

The new cannard is that because of overprescription of some meds given to neurotics and addicts, psychiatry as a field is the true sham.I remember reading a study that in the U.S. at least, most Prozac prescriptions were written by general practitioners, not psychiatrists. Medicine, being empirically based, prescribes whatever appears to work best and most efficiently for patients. A few people may complain loudly about SRI anti-depressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil) but there are many, many more people who won't give them up. If an individual patient says a med has alleviated their depression and is not suffering from side-effects, how can a doctor ethically deny them the prescription? What other measure do they have of a patient's depression or lack of it than what the patient tells them?Other specialties have less trouble standardizing care because those diseases are more clear-cut. Other disorders of systems, such as diabetes & allergies, can be tested more easily. Psychiatric disorders will probably eventually have better diagnostics via brain scans, but currently the diagnosis has to be based on symptoms, so the DSM-IV standardizes that procedure.I think most people don't understand that empirical evaluation of symptoms is all psychiatry has to go on. The suspicion that the anti-psychiatry folks speak of the most loudly is that the pharmaceutical industry influences the development of the DSM-IV, i.e. disorders are "voted into existence" so that a certain drug can be prescribed.People for whom psychiatric drugs or other therapies have not improved their condition or made it worse are much more likely to complain loudly, go to the papers telling them the drugs have ruined their life, or set up a support network/website as a 'psychiatry survivor' than people for whom the treatment has been lifesaving or made them able to function in normal society.As someone who sees a psychiatrist, psychologist and is medicated, I'd agree that satisfied patients like myself are prone to be quiet. The reason is the general stigma against mental illness. Very few people, and certainly not my employer, know that I'm diagnosed with bipolar disorder II, have a strong family history of mental illness, and am medicated. I'm open about the fact that I go to therapy weekly (with a psychologist) but I don't talk openly about my diagonisis and medication (by a psychiatrist).So the plans to arrange for a database detailing the mental health of every American citizen are to be admired - and pose no threat to society?Of course that's a problem. I was discouraged of even revealing my diagnosis to my insurance company, because it would create trouble if I ever changed insurers, i.e. like any pre-existing condition, it would make it difficult to get coverage in the future.Mental health is a vitally important issue - maybe all politicians should volunteer themselves for testing?Of course testing should remain voluntary.Let psychiatrists run the show - the DSM-IV is a gift from God that has the capability of creating heaven on Earth - a world free of mental disease! Mental-illness does not exist - as it is defined by mainstream psychiatry.Of course it exists. Sometimes it's short-term and sometimes it's chronic.There is very little hard evidence that 90%+ of mental illness has a biological origin - though once the "illness" (the belief state or state of existential stress) has taken a hold major biochemical changes do occur...Speaking of evidence, where has your assertion that the progress of measurable brain-activity changes is due to "belief" been proven?My opinion is - in a great majority of cases - childhood experiences (especially at the hands of the "significant others" in the child's life, and, more subtly, influences from one's ancestral background).Again, evidence? Doctors rely on symptoms, and that's what they treat. Cause is not thoroughly understood in many illnesses, but the symptoms are still treated. We know more about what causes cancer now than we did when massive funding for research started building in the early 1970s, but we still don't fully understand the origins of most cancers (Environmental? Genetic? Both?).Finally - the major cause of mental health problems in later life is the influence in childhood of parents, teachers, religious figures, and other's who engage in "inappropriate attitudes of authority".This may be your personal experience, but where's the evidence of the role of genetic inheritance? I suspect that genetic predisposition may only be a cause once it's aggravated by environmental conditions, but it's a rather individual issue. And where are your studies to support this assertion as regards those diagnosed with mental illness generally? When I go to a doctor, on the front cover of my mental records there is the word SCHIZOPHRENIA. The psychiatrists' opinions about me from 1962-4 have been moved to the front and notes made on them.Stigma is annoying. But I don't think official diagnosis is as important as finding a doctor who will listen to you. If the meds aren't helping you, you should be able to try something different. I have an agreement with the psychiatrist who prescribes my drugs that I can eventually try life without them, as long as I continue with my appointments for a time to be sure I'm fairing well. I sympathize about the stigma of schizophrenia. If I were hearing voices I would avoid telling a psychiatrist.It's a common impression among laymen that a drug like Ritalin or Prozac amounts to treating an undesirable mood as if it were abnormal, when it would be better to think of it as the maladjusted workings of normal psychology.A "mood" problem doesn't sound very serious to most people. What about the ability to function in life? I started taking Paxil (SRI anti-depressant) because I wasn't succeeding in getting myself out of bed to go to my therapy appointments, much less to work. My doctor and I have pared my Paxil down to 10 mg a day (barely therapeutic) but I have to think about my life circumstances. When I'm off my Paxil for a few days, I'm irritable and prone to inflicting low-level chaos and those around me. I'm getting better and better about managing that irritability quietly, but I'm not going off before I feel able to handle it. When you've had debilitating mental illness (or distress or whatever) you're always mindful of the danger of going into another downward spiral and losing what you've gained in terms of life stability.So psychiatrists tend to treat their drugs as a panacea, even when they aren't effective. And even if they are effective, is that really the best solution?Psychiatrists are trained as empirical scientists. They prescribe what shows the most dramatic improvement in their patients symptoms. Also, if a patient is coping with daily life better, they'll be able to address the more complicated issues. Is there a danger of dependence? Certainly, but the risk/benefit has to be weighed for each individual. Do we chastise diabetics for their "dependence" on insulin?And when the anti-psychiatrists try to explain how the medical establishment got into such a state, they place the blame squarely on the profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies and their extensive economic influence on the whole process.It's the pharmaceutical company influence that needs to be watched most closely. For instance, before I could afford to see a psychiatrist, I had a general practioner who prescribed "time-release" Zoloft, claiming it reduced side effects. When I finally saw a psychiatrist, he told me the "time-release" was just a pharmaceutical company tactic to extend the profits as regular Zoloft went generic. In this case, the young general practioner was unduly influenced by pharmaceutical company lobbying/advertising. The experienced psychiatrist was less prone to pharmaceutical company influence, and prescribed the less expensive drug.

I'll stop replying there, as this post is so long. :redface:

[fließendes]

They believe that simply clearing the thetans from your body that are the result of the "ruler of the 'Galactic Confederacy' who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living." The souls are the body thetans who cause all your problems -- isn't it obvious?And Hubbard contended that "auditing" could cure homosexuality. He was very influenced by psychiatric theory published by the 1950s. He initially wanted approval from the medical establishment, and began to demonize them when his "studies" were rejected.Here's a little story for you:

I visited a severely schizophrenic friend of mine in my local psychiatric ward...There are many problems with institutionalized care that don't necessarily reflect the problems of psychiatry generally. Most institutions are understaffed and manned largely by nurses who have a natural interest in mantaining calm in the ward. In such an environment, individual needs are not the only consideration. Institutionalization should be a last resort. Based on what I've seen, I have trouble seeing how anybody could get well in a psychiatric ward, unless it were out of a desire to leave.We know homosexuality was once voted in as a mental illness then due to protests by Gay groups the disorder was then de classified, also by a vote.And Dianetics, which is still the Scientology bible (the main Scientology branch in LA has bookshelves lined with this single book) still lists homosexuality as "anti-survival". In other words, in Scientology, homosexuality is still considered something that can be eradicated with "auditing". The DSM has re-examined its assertions. Hubbard's assertions in Dianetics (published in the 1950s) go unquestioned by the Church of Scientology.

***edit addition***

Though in his report the project was a success with treating Schizophrenia through mainly therapy (and drugs if the patient requested or consented) the project was scrapped in the favour of the move towards overall drug treatments.In the U.S., the influence of insurers favors medication. It's generally less expensive to medicate someone than for them to see a psychiatrist or psychologist weekly. Insurers prefer to pay for what affects symptoms the most for the least money. I'm sure most psychiatrists would prefer insurance coverage that would cover the fees to see patients weekly rather than simple coverage for medication. Even if their motives were purely for financial profit, how would they make more money? Insurers are very reluctant to cover weekly therapy visits, but they are generally willing to at least partially fund prescribed medication.

[Scifinerdgrl]

I remember reading a study that in the U.S. at least, most Prozac prescriptions were written by general practitioners, not psychiatrists. Medicine, being empirically based, prescribes whatever appears to work best and most efficiently for patients. A few people may complain loudly about SRI anti-depressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil) but there are many, many more people who won't give them up. If an individual patient says a med has alleviated their depression and is not suffering from side-effects, how can a doctor ethically deny them the prescription? What other measure do they have of a patient's depression or lack of it than what the patient tells them?I think most people don't understand that empirical evaluation of symptoms is all psychiatry has to go on.

Yup, yup and yup. Even though there are functional MRI's and other newfangled tools, they're far too expensive to be used for diagnostics for ordinary depression.

The suspicion that the anti-psychiatry folks speak of the most loudly is that the pharmaceutical industry influences the development of the DSM-IV, i.e. disorders are "voted into existence" so that a certain drug can be prescribed.

What they tend to overlook is the fact that many diagnoses in DSM-IV are treated with non-pharmaceutical therapies. Also, some are treated with "old" drugs that are available as generics.

We know more about what causes cancer now than we did when massive funding for research started building in the early 1970s, but we still don't fully understand the origins of most cancers (Environmental? Genetic? Both?).

We may never know the cause of all mental illness, but what would that have to do with treatment? If lithium works for bi-polars and major tranqs work for schizophrenics & SSRIs work for depression, what does it matter if it's in the genes, or a virus, or a whack to the head? The patient gets better and is able to go back to family, job & friends.

but where's the evidence of the role of genetic inheritance? I suspect that genetic predisposition may only be a cause once it's aggravated by environmental conditions, but it's a rather individual issue.

I don't have links, but bi-polar disease has a strong family predisposition, and the child of a schizophrenic has a 1 in 10 chance of coming down with the disease vs 1 in 100 for the general public. But... lots of people with no family history become ill.


When you've had debilitating mental illness (or distress or whatever) you're always mindful of the danger of going into another downward spiral and losing what you've gained in terms of life stability.Psychiatrists are trained as empirical scientists. They prescribe what shows the most dramatic improvement in their patients symptoms. Also, if a patient is coping with daily life better, they'll be able to address the more complicated issues.

This is what the anti-psychiatry nutters don't get: that the diseases are debilitating and patients get well. I grew up with my mother instead of in a foster home thanks to pharmaceutical intervention. The few times she went off her meds she wound up back in the hospital. When you've seen someone transform from a capable parent to an incoherent mental patient, there's no doubt that mental illness does indeed exist.

Is there a danger of dependence? Certainly, but the risk/benefit has to be weighed for each individual. Do we chastise diabetics for their "dependence" on insulin?

Exactly! People with chronic diseases depend on all kinds of medicines yet only the mentally ill are chided for taking their medicine. Why not tell heart patients to give up their digitalis?

The experienced psychiatrist was less prone to pharmaceutical company influence, and prescribed the less expensive drug.

I'll stop replying there, as this post is so long. :redface:

:wave: I'm glad you're doing well. I've had a similar experience with an allergist. The board-certified allergist I went to knew waaaaay more about allergies than my GP, but for someone with minor problems, my GP probably did just fine. The oncologists I have taken foster doggies to knew way more about cancer and non-cancerous conditions than the doggies' regular vets. A generalist just can't keep up with all the research so unfortunately they do rely on the drug company reps to educate them on new products. The CDC or NIH or specialist organizations don't send people around to doctors' offices, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean all drugs are bad or that the diseases they treat don't exist. You don't have to be an MD to know the anti-psychiatry nutters (and anti-vaccine, and anti-whatever) are full of crap.

[anthrosciguy]

And Hubbard contended that "auditing" could cure homosexuality. He was very influenced by psychiatric theory published by the 1950s. He initially wanted approval from the medical establishment, and began to demonize them when his "studies" were rejected.

That would be the branch of "psychiatric theory published by the 1950s" that dealt with people's problems being caused by being exploded by atomic weapons hundreds of millions of years ago -- what theories were those again? Sure, he did what amounted to his own parody of psychiatry, but then that's what the anti-psychiatry, and all alternative health for that matter, routinely does. They denounce a type of health science and then, after accusing that science of being money-grubbing charaltans, set up their own actual, untested, and highly lucrative trade in "alternative health" (mental or physical). Their accusations then serve as armor; for instance, any call for their extremely unlikely claims of how to do things to be tested is countered by further accusations that the "establishment" is trying to shut down and censor "the truth". Works great -- it's a multi-billion dollar business that requires no testing, no credentials -- just a lack of moral compass -- to enter and engage in.

[fließendes]

That would be the branch of "psychiatric theory published by the 1950s" that dealt with people's problems being caused by being exploded by atomic weapons hundreds of millions of years ago -- what theories were those again? What you're referring to is "OT III" which was "developed" by Hubbard in the late 1960s, reportedly under the influence of drugs. The book he published in the 1950s, Dianetics has a great deal of influence from ideas current in psychiatry in the 1950s such as abreactive therapy. I'm I suggesting "auditing" is science? There's certainly no evidence of that.

[Praetorian]

:wave: I'm glad you're doing well. I've had a similar experience with an allergist. The board-certified allergist I went to knew waaaaay more about allergies than my GP, but for someone with minor problems, my GP probably did just fine. The oncologists I have taken foster doggies to knew way more about cancer and non-cancerous conditions than the doggies' regular vets. A generalist just can't keep up with all the research so unfortunately they do rely on the drug company reps to educate them on new products. The CDC or NIH or specialist organizations don't send people around to doctors' offices, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean all drugs are bad or that the diseases they treat don't exist. You don't have to be an MD to know the anti-psychiatry nutters (and anti-vaccine, and anti-whatever) are full of crap.

"Anti-whatever"?

Watch your non-sequiturs, please.

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly! People with chronic diseases depend on all kinds of medicines yet only the mentally ill are chided for taking their medicine. Why not tell heart patients to give up their digitalis?

Exactly. Addiction isn't good but it's not a catastrophe.

There's an awful lot of conditions for which I would choose healthy and addicted vs sick and not addicted.

[whichphilosophy]

I remember reading a study that in the U.S. at least, most Prozac prescriptions were written by general practitioners, not psychiatrists. Medicine, being empirically based, prescribes whatever appears to work best and most efficiently for patients. A few people may complain loudly about SRI anti-depressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil) but there are many, many more people who won't give them up. If an individual patient says a med has alleviated their depression and is not suffering from side-effects, how can a doctor ethically deny them the prescription? What other measure do they have of a patient's depression or lack of it than what the patient tells them? :

There has been good reason to complain about these, and recent information validated those who pointed out the dangers years ago. The FDA website carries warnings for Prozac and Zoloft an Paxil amongst others as below even if it has not yet drawn any conclusions on these.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/AntidepressanstPHA.htm
See the health advisory issued last year by the FDA where I’m sure the clinical trials in progress will produce more reasons for caution. http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/SSRI200507.htm
See below also the Title FDA Public Health Advisory Worsening Depression and Suicidality in Patients Being Treated With Antidepressant dated March 22 2005

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2005/NEW01270.html

The choice of legal medication must of course be with the patient, but the doctor should warn of side effects. This is of course not always easy as it means having to spend a great deal of time getting updated.
The other side of the coin is that is it also ethical to enforce a patient to take medications against their will. This is of course legal, and legislation would widen those powers.

I think most people don't understand that empirical evaluation of symptoms is all psychiatry has to go on. The suspicion that the anti-psychiatry folks speak of the most loudly is that the pharmaceutical industry influences the development of the DSM-IV, i.e. disorders are "voted into existence" so that a certain drug can be prescribed. :

Disorders are in fact voted into existence and the DSM disorders, which are indexed with reference numbers, can be coded against a prescription. Efficient in this way but draws criticism.

Thomas Szaz in ‘The Myth Of Mental Illness’ likens the treatment of contemporary psychiatric patients to the witch-hunts, and the DSM (Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders) has been called the equivalent of the Malleus Maleficarum, (a book used in the Middle Ages to identify and exterminate witches). Most of these witches were actually practitioners of paganism, herbal medicine or politically troublesome and rebellious peasants. (I guess I better be careful therefore about recommending TCM).

Very few people, and certainly not my employer, know that I'm diagnosed with bipolar disorder …. :

This is of course your own affair and none of their business. Unfortunately it’s a form of discrimination in the work place. In fact the question asked is whether it is a mental illness or simply a typical problem in a varying degrees that we all face at times. Statements such as 50% of Americans will suffer from Mental illness in their lifetime cause some concern as to whether the delineations of mental illness are in fact accurate.

Of course that's a problem. I was discouraged of even revealing my diagnosis to my insurance company, because it would create trouble if I ever changed insurers, i.e. like any pre-existing condition, it would make it difficult to get coverage in the future. :

You would get coverage at highly inflated prices and assessed against the DSM evaluations. From a legal point of view, the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act (S.543) forces something onto insured people, something that they don’t want to pay for.

Newton’s Cat raised in interesting point, and of course compulsory screening has been a subject of lobbying for sometime.

The British Medical Journal, which is not so muted as the American Medical Association takes a somewhat neutral but cautions view of this.
See: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458

QUOTE from the above: Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, has multiple ties to the Bush administration. George Bush Sr. was a member of Lilly's board of directors and Bush Jr. appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Lilly made $1.6m in political contributions in 2000—82% of which went to Bush and the Republican Party. UNQUOTE

Of course testing should remain voluntary. :

If it is voluntary then testing can be coerced and if mandatory can be forced, where in practice there is a thin line of division in the way it is applied.

There is a basic infringement of civil liberties with legislated or forced screening, which lawyers and civil libertarians call, presumption before the fact. Mental illness itself is a controversial subject for which there are no clear delineations between being eccentric, dealing with life’s problems, dealing with life’s traumas etc.
See: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/ort754676.pdf

Here the World Health Organization Report page 6 paragraph 8 in which it criticizes the lack of rigour in studies and at worst relies purely on theory. I have seen a reference to their report in 2001 which calls the DSM unscientific but cannot locate this through the internet but may try their website later on.
Compulsory screening opens the doors to authoritarianism where external parties will judge us as sane or not and dividing us into mental lepers and mental non-lepers in what Dr. Thomas Szaz once called a “Therapeutic state.”

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145112?cookieSet=1&journalCode=psych


Take the key advisor appointed by President George Bush to the National Advisory Council (NAC) is National Enterprise Institute psychiatrist and writer Sally Satel believes it should be mandatory as in her book:
Drug Treatment - The Case for Coercion by Sally L. Satel, M.D.; Paperback – just 79 pages (1999): AEI (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research); ISBN 0844771287.

However, while this is more related to treatment of people with drug related offences but she uses that as a wedge to substantiate nationwide screening.
Of course it exists. Sometimes it's short-term and sometimes it's chronic. :

But does mental illness exist as defined by mainstream psychiatry (Newton Cats and my point)??

Since what exactly is mental illness is a source of confusion to the field of mental health, let alone what exactly is “normal,” Therefore what exactly will be doing mental health screening for, conformity to a specified standard or norm? In this rather than identifying mental illness we may be manufacturing it. (I still remember Thomas Szaz’s book, the manufacture of madness).

Again, evidence? Doctors rely on symptoms, and that's what they treat. Cause is not thoroughly understood in many illnesses, but the symptoms are still treated. :

In medicine if a town has dysentery the drugs will work for 48 hours. The cleaning of the water supply will mean the dysentery will disappear. Because not enough is done to locate the causes in psychiatry, the drug will just continue to be dispensed to keep down the dysentery.

As a matter of fact Doctor Loren Mosher (former head of APA research) resigned from the APA when all non-drug programs of treatment were suspended even though he claims the programs using no or reduced drugs but more therapy were working.

Stigma is annoying. But I don't think official diagnosis is as important as finding a doctor who will listen to you. If the meds aren't helping you, you should be able to try something different. I have an agreement with the psychiatrist who prescribes my drugs that I can eventually try life without them, as long as I continue with my appointments for a time to be sure I'm fairing well. I sympathize about the stigma of schizophrenia. If I were hearing voices I would avoid telling a psychiatrist. :

Is Stigma really a by-product of ignorance. There is one saying that a good practitioner finds out about the patient from the patient.

Although we may not know it, we have, in our day, witnessed the birth of the Therapeutic State. This is perhaps the major implication of psychiatry as an institution of social control. --Thomas S. Szasz, Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry.

Psychiatrists are trained as empirical scientists. :

Medical Doctors follow from research that is approved by their various bodies and as such are not empirical scientists but follow laid down procedures. If one (a psychiatrist) is following procedures based on a book of voted in maladies they cannot be classed as empirical science. In medical research an exact science module is used in researching cures for physical illnesses. The medical doctor de facto the fact every patient is different cannot use an exact science that applies to everyone (but we can say uses an applied science).

The psychiatrist will also see patients who vary considerably but will rely on the current disorder definitions stated in the DSM. If he can’t find a disorder, he can call it “Other Disorder.”

[fließendes]

There has been good reason to complain about these, and recent information validated those who pointed out the dangers years ago. The FDA website carries warnings for Prozac and Zoloft an Paxil amongst others as below even if it has not yet drawn any conclusions on these.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/AntidepressanstPHA.htm
See the health advisory issued last year by the FDA where I’m sure the clinical trials in progress will produce more reasons for caution. http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/SSRI200507.htm
See below also the Title FDA Public Health Advisory Worsening Depression and Suicidality in Patients Being Treated With Antidepressant dated March 22 2005

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2005/NEW01270.htmlThe Church of Scientology and their front group the Citizens Commission on Human Rights made a great deal of these reports when they came out. The reports should be taken on their own merits, but I've been taking SSRIs intermittently since highschool and I've never suffered any severe side effects. If I had, I would have told my psychiatrist.The choice of legal medication must of course be with the patient, but the doctor should warn of side effects. This is of course not always easy as it means having to spend a great deal of time getting updated.And you think they don't? :rolleyes: I notice you brushed past my account of how much better a good, experienced psychiatrist can weigh the nuances of a given drug than can a relatively inexperienced general practitioner. Of course Psychs know about side effects, and I've never begun taking a drug and not had my doctor ask if I were experiencing side effects, with emphasis on the most common ones. Of course, every drug has a laundry list of side effects that must be listed even if it affected one person in an enormous study.

There are doctors of all specialties who don't keep up on the literature the way they should. However, a psych who dispenses a great deal of a single drug is likely to know more than a general practitoner who dispenses all kinds of drugs (as I illustrated in my example of the general practitioner who bought the pharmaceutical company line, as opposed to my psych who had a more thorough and nuanced knowledge of the drug).Disorders are in fact voted into existence and the DSM disorders, which are indexed with reference numbers, can be coded against a prescription. Efficient in this way but draws criticism.They are voted into existence by experts in the field. Psychology is a soft science. It is constantly refining and re-evaluating. As I mentioned, it ditched the idea that homosexuality is a "disorder". The Church of Scientology still thinks homosexuality can be overcome. Hubbard is never re-evaluated.In fact the question asked is whether it is a mental illness or simply a typical problem in a varying degrees that we all face at times.Statements such as 50% of Americans will suffer from Mental illness in their lifetime cause some concern as to whether the delineations of mental illness are in fact accurate.I suspect much mental illness is a "typical problem" for many people. Some people will have a passing depression just as they'll have a passing case of bronchitis. Some people will find their "problem" chronic but manage without meds. Some, like myself, will choose to take meds for an extended period of time--possibly for life.You would get coverage at highly inflated prices and assessed against the DSM evaluations.I would not be able to get any coverage had I not been prescribed these meds by a doctor. And yes the doctor, being a psychiatrist, references the DSM. However, I don't believe that a good psychiatrist, any more than a good surgeon, uses a text as any more than a guide. I reject your insinuation that psychiatrists are by definition slaves or agents of pharmaceutical interests. Newton’s Cat raised in interesting point, and of course compulsory screening has been a subject of lobbying for sometime.That will never go over with the U.S. public. Did you see the uproar over the Supreme Court eminent domain ruling for instance? Americans will not submit to involuntary screening for everybody.But does mental illness exist as defined by mainstream psychiatry (Newton Cats and my point)??

Since what exactly is mental illness is a source of confusion to the field of mental health, let alone what exactly is “normal,” Therefore what exactly will be doing mental health screening for, conformity to a specified standard or norm? In this rather than identifying mental illness we may be manufacturing it.I don't go to a psychiatrist and get medicated so that I can be normal but so that I can live my life. Like most people, I had no interest in taking psychiatric drugs until I had lost any semblance of self-determination in my life. Getting out of bed. Going to work. Living my life the way I want to, being the person I want to be. These are things I wasn't accomplishing until I took a number of measures to get back hold of my life--my psychiatrist, the drugs he prescribes me, my psychotherapist--these have been key parts of my recovery of my life. It's working for me.Because not enough is done to locate the causes in psychiatry, the drug will just continue to be dispensed to keep down the dysentery.If that were the case, I'd still be taking old-school anti-depressants and lithium, rather than SSRIs and Lamictal. The pharmaceutical industry is always trying to come up with a drug that works better with less side effects. Often they market drugs of dubious value (e.g. "time-release" Zoloft) but the stuff that works is in demand. I took the old anti-depressants (tetra-somethingorother) and I can tell you that SSRIs work much better.As a matter of fact Doctor Loren Mosher (former head of APA research) resigned from the APA when all non-drug programs of treatment were suspended even though he claims the programs using no or reduced drugs but more therapy were working.The evidence is that a combination of drugs and talk-therapy are the most effective remedy for depression. As I mentioned, if psychiatrists first interest were getting rich they'd insist on weekly therapy over drugs. If psychiatrists were as good at lobbying the government as is the pharmaceutical industry, the law might require more coverage for therapy and less for drugs. Medical Doctors follow from research that is approved by their various bodies and as such are not empirical scientists but follow laid down procedures. If one (a psychiatrist) is following procedures based on a book of voted in maladies they cannot be classed as empirical science.Doctors are absolutely empirical scientists. Empiricism is about observation. Doctors observe symptoms, and make a diagnosis based on their knowledge of various illnesses. They also add to the body of research with their observations of individual patients. I've sometimes felt like a lab rat in my psychiatrist's office, not because he wasn't listening to me, but because I knew he was writing down in detail everything he observed about it me.The psychiatrist will also see patients who vary considerably but will rely on the current disorder definitions stated in the DSM. If he can’t find a disorder, he can call it “Other Disorder.”As though doctors in other specialties don't come across apparent illnesses they've never seen before? I will repeat: any good doctor will use a current body of knowledge (such as the DSM) as a guide. Illnesses stemming from the brain and mental processes are very complex and are constantly being re-evaluated. I will end, as I often do, with my favorite Freud quote, which speaks to the difficulty of diagnosing and treating mental illness:"...it still strikes myself as strange that the case histories that I write should read like short stories and that....they lack the serious stamp of science....The fact is that local diagnosis and electrical reactions lead nowhere in the study of hysteria....whereas a detailed description of mental processes....enables me...to obtain at least some insight into the course of that affection".
--Sigmund Freud, "Studies on hysteria" (1895)We're complex animals.

[Don Alhambra]

whichphilosophy:

From my previous post, here is a list of recognised mental health problems. Which are biological, and which aren't? How do you make your decision? Where do you draw the line? (I forgot Tourette's earlier so I added it in).


Traumatic brain injury
Stroke
Parkinson's
Alzheimer's
Epilepsy
Tourette's
Schizophrenia
Manic depression / bipolar disorder
Autistic spectrum disorders (inc. Asperger's)
ADHD / ADD

[Barefoot Bree]

I always get a giggle out of the whole "involuntary screening of the entire population" scenario, especially here in the US. Do you have any idea how much such a thing would cost? A thorough, reliable psychiatric screening is more than a few questions or a single lab test for HIV (for instance). It's several sessions with a psych professional, a very involved questionnaire, AND interviews with family members, as well. Multiply that by the size of whatever population you are talking about screening.

Hell, you wouldn't be able to get funding to do that over one senior class in one high school. And you think somebody is seriously planning to do that for every single adult in the US? Get real. There aren't enough dollars - or psych professionals!!!!! - in the world.

[Scifinerdgrl]

Thomas Szaz in ‘The Myth Of Mental Illness’ likens the treatment of contemporary psychiatric patients to the witch-hunts, and the DSM (Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders) has been called the equivalent of the Malleus Maleficarum, (a book used in the Middle Ages to identify and exterminate witches). Most of these witches were actually practitioners of paganism, herbal medicine or politically troublesome and rebellious peasants. (I guess I better be careful therefore about recommending TCM).


...which means that people who hear voices or want to commit suicide shouldn't go to psychiatrists? How does that follow?

I'm glad to see you didn't cite your other hero, Peter Breggin: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The DSM-IV is no such thing. It's a diagnostic tool.


It's more a statistical tool and an aid to investigation. It's more like a vocabulary guide. The DSMs are notoriously a-theoretical. Diagnosis necessarily needs theoretical assumptions. Just like physics.

Certainly the DSM is susceptible to criticism. The value of the DSM and the ICD is the fact that psychoanalysts, behaviorists and whatever other theoretical frames of reference can understand at least who they are treating.

Opposing the DSM is mindless political BS. Even the antipsychiatrists talk about schizophrenics. Wherever talk about patients is necessary, DSMs and ICDs will always be needed, even if we don't agree with the bondaries and families of "disorders", "syndromes", "behaviors" or whatever you want to call them.