Friday, 20 January 2012
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Robert Whitaker at Gothenburg
So, I went to Gothenburg, Sweden, last month where Robert Whitaker was giving a talk about his latest book Anatomy of an Epidemic, a lecture arranged by the Family Care Foundation.
The point of departure in his book is Whitaker's puzzlement about, that despite the claim that pharmacological treatments have improved treatment options within psychiatry, and therefore the lives of “mentally ill” people, an increasing number of these “mentally ill” people become chronic, on disability pay, suffering through more and more serious “side”-effects, and exposed to a greater and greater risk of early death.
To find answers to his questions, Whitaker conducts a thorough review of the research in the field of psychopharmacology in its entirety, and concludes that the picture painted by this research is somewhat different than the one psychiatry has delivered to the general public.
Whitaker's book, like its predecessor Mad in America , is a disturbing read. One thing is to see how the actual science in the field clearly and unmistakably proves psychiatry's storytelling about biological brain diseases and the superiority of psych drugs in their "treatment" to the public over the past decades to be just that: storytelling, with no basis whatsoever in any scientific evidence. This is what everyone familiar with the scientific research has known for a long time. Another thing still is to see the suspicion, which even many critics will not dare to covet: that psychiatry – almost from the outset – has understood that its own tales of the wonders of psychopharmacology are lies equal to the stories of biological brain illnesses, so unmistakably confirmed in Whitaker's book by quote after quote of “expert” statements about the matter.
Like most other critics, Whitaker ended his lecture with the inevitable, politically correct: "I do know, that many people feel they are being helped by psychiatric medications, so there is a place for these drugs in treatment."
In the discussion that followed, I asked him why, after just presenting the scientific data - which all state one thing: that if people feel helped by psych drugs, then this must be attributed to either a placebo effect, and/or simply the fact that their judgment is impaired due to the drugs' influence, so in actual fact, there is no place for the drugs in "treatment", in as far as this "treatment" is meant to truly help people in crisis - he still decided to end his presentation with what could be described as an apology for said presentation.
In the last chapter of Anatomy of an Epidemic, Whitaker takes a thorough look at the Finnish Open Dialogue approach, which, with its well-documented effecacy, is an alternative to the current biomedical approach to emotional crisis. Yet even Open Dialogue uses psych drugs -- in a very limited capacity, especially when it comes to "anti"-psychotics, and only as a "last resort". In answer to my question, Whitaker said he would like to see projects like Open Dialogue initiated, but with just one difference: no use of psych drugs at all. I would really like to see that, too! Like Whitaker says, mankind has survived for thousands of years on this planet, without these drugs, so…
The slides for Whitaker's presentation are here.
Thanks to Paul Englar for his huge help with the translation of this blog post.
The point of departure in his book is Whitaker's puzzlement about, that despite the claim that pharmacological treatments have improved treatment options within psychiatry, and therefore the lives of “mentally ill” people, an increasing number of these “mentally ill” people become chronic, on disability pay, suffering through more and more serious “side”-effects, and exposed to a greater and greater risk of early death.
To find answers to his questions, Whitaker conducts a thorough review of the research in the field of psychopharmacology in its entirety, and concludes that the picture painted by this research is somewhat different than the one psychiatry has delivered to the general public.
Whitaker's book, like its predecessor Mad in America , is a disturbing read. One thing is to see how the actual science in the field clearly and unmistakably proves psychiatry's storytelling about biological brain diseases and the superiority of psych drugs in their "treatment" to the public over the past decades to be just that: storytelling, with no basis whatsoever in any scientific evidence. This is what everyone familiar with the scientific research has known for a long time. Another thing still is to see the suspicion, which even many critics will not dare to covet: that psychiatry – almost from the outset – has understood that its own tales of the wonders of psychopharmacology are lies equal to the stories of biological brain illnesses, so unmistakably confirmed in Whitaker's book by quote after quote of “expert” statements about the matter.
Like most other critics, Whitaker ended his lecture with the inevitable, politically correct: "I do know, that many people feel they are being helped by psychiatric medications, so there is a place for these drugs in treatment."
In the discussion that followed, I asked him why, after just presenting the scientific data - which all state one thing: that if people feel helped by psych drugs, then this must be attributed to either a placebo effect, and/or simply the fact that their judgment is impaired due to the drugs' influence, so in actual fact, there is no place for the drugs in "treatment", in as far as this "treatment" is meant to truly help people in crisis - he still decided to end his presentation with what could be described as an apology for said presentation.
In the last chapter of Anatomy of an Epidemic, Whitaker takes a thorough look at the Finnish Open Dialogue approach, which, with its well-documented effecacy, is an alternative to the current biomedical approach to emotional crisis. Yet even Open Dialogue uses psych drugs -- in a very limited capacity, especially when it comes to "anti"-psychotics, and only as a "last resort". In answer to my question, Whitaker said he would like to see projects like Open Dialogue initiated, but with just one difference: no use of psych drugs at all. I would really like to see that, too! Like Whitaker says, mankind has survived for thousands of years on this planet, without these drugs, so…
The slides for Whitaker's presentation are here.
Thanks to Paul Englar for his huge help with the translation of this blog post.
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Monday, 21 February 2011
Healing Homes. A new film by Daniel Mackler
If you know Daniel's previous film, Take These Broken Wings, this one is different. Healing Homes is an informal, often contemplative, and also raw, and at the same time very intimate and personal film.
Instead of the carefully staged interviews we saw in Take These Broken Wings, in Healing Homes Daniel Mackler takes a step back as a director, and leaves the scene almost entirely to the participants in the film, joining them only as just one more participant himself. This allows him to capture the essence of what Familjevårdsstiftelsen, the Family Care Foundation, in Gothenburg, Sweden, is all about: fearless openness and authenticity. Take These Broken Wings showed us, in a very professional way, how full recovery from "psychosis"/"schizophrenia" without drugs is possible, even likely, with the help of a professional therapist. Healing Homes goes further, not only explicitly revealing a truth about the human being Carina Håkansson, founder of the Family Care Foundation, but indeed revealing the truth about crisis to be a state of being human to an extreme extent that can be understood and overcome with the help of other human beings who are not afraid to be extremely human themselves. This is what this film is about. The healing power of being oneself, genuinely, uncompromizingly. And not just behind the closed door of a therapist's office, but in all life situations, which is what the family home, "det utvidgade terapirummet", the extended therapy room, invites to.
Just like Daniel Mackler himself, I'm quite suspicious of professionalism in the field. As the Norwegian psychologist Christian Moltu wrote in his article "Det konkrete, mellommenneskelige" (The actual, interpersonal) in 2009, all too often therapists make use of therapy techniques, of their professionalism, as a kind of shield they can hide behind whenever they don't manage to stay present, and truly meet their clients where these are at. Healing Homes nevertheless has convinced me that professionalism can be of great value if it is used as a means to prevent exactly this distancing, alienating, the other dehumanizing use of itself, if it is used to help the therapist, and whoever else interacts with a person in crisis, stay present with the person in any given situation by being "professionally" human, conscious about and self-aware of one's own as well as the person in crisis' humanness.
"It's about people, and... people. Giving love to people", Therése says in the film about the Family Care Foundation. And it is what the film not only is about, but what it actually does, fearlessly and uncompromizingly with great respect and love allowing people to be who they are. I've watched Healing Homes four times now, each time discovering new, fascinating details. It's a film I'll watch again and again. For the details, but first and foremost for its love for people that is the magic behind the success of the Family Care Foundation as well as the magic of this film.
Order the film here: http://www.iraresoul.com/dvd2.html, and watch it, again and again.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Emotional disturbances vs. "psychosis" - A valid distinction?
Yeah, I'm still alive. Just had to find a new place to stay for myself, Calvin the cat, and my two horses, and, while one has to make major changes in one area of life, why not take the plunge, and make them in others too, and find a new job as well? Especially when you can't help but sense that your current boss doesn't really need you to work for her full-time anymore, and you've thought of trying something completely different anyway? As of today, I've found a new place to stay, and a new, completely different job.
Anyhow, the reason why I thought I'd write a new post is this post on Rossa Forbes' blog Holistic Recovery from Schizophrenia about the latest of Mark Foster's letters to Robert Whitaker, that had me remember another of his letters, this one, and my comment to it, originally posted at a Facebook thread. Since not everybody is on Facebook, and can go and read it there, here it is:
A very insightful piece, yes. Anyhow, some critical thoughts:
- "Some of my patients are very complicated with severe emotional or even psychotic disturbances, but those are rare."
What I read between the lines here is that emotional "disturbances" are different from "psychotic" ones. In how far? I went to a talk about "psychosis", given by a psychiatrist, back in November last year. According to this psychiatrist, and also according to what I've been reading virtually everywhere where "psychosis" is defined, fear is one of the main "symptoms" of "psychosis". Fear, and anger (with anger being the emotional response to fear). Fear and anger are emotions. Now, the list of "symptoms" for "psychosis" also includes so-called "thought disorders", "hallucinations", "delusions", etc., so you might say, there are other than emotional "disturbances" involved in "psychosis". However, my personal experience is that at the core of all these other "disturbances" are fear and anger. These emotions are what creates all other "disturbances". Just like sadness, grieving a loss, usually creates other than emotional "disturbances" ( inability to concentrate, withdrawal from social contexts, etc.). So, my take on this is that "psychotic disturbances", too, are emotional "disturbances".
- "What I mean is that most patients do not show signs of a pathological disturbance in their mental functioning. Rather, they are sad, lonely, anxious, frustrated, disillusioned, confused, scared--all in all, they seem very human, suffering from some of the mood changes that are endemic to the human experience. In the vast majority of these cases, major social and environmental factors are the clear precipitants of their symptoms: death in the family, job loss, marital struggles, substance abuse."
Basically, the same applies to this quote, and my question here would be, exactly where do we draw the line between what Mark Foster calls a "pathological disturbance" on the one hand, and existential, to human nature very natural, emotional suffering, "endemic to the human experience", as Mark Foster says? Or, to maybe push it to extremes, but nevertheless, where do we draw the line between naturally suffering human being, and sick-in-the-head lesser-than--human being? And who has the power to draw this line, on what basis? Towards the end of the article Mark Foster writes: "Some diseases, some mental illnesses, are severe, debilitating, life-threatening." He doesn't name which diseases he refers to, but when "mental illness" is talked about there's always one specific label that, if no other of all the labels in the DSM, seems to simply have to be a true disease: schizophrenia. Because if a reaction to life as extreme as what is labelled "schizophrenia" is just that, a reaction to life, and not a true disease, then no label in the DSM is a true disease. Psychiatry as a medical speciality stands and falls with "schizophrenia", and how we define the experience labelled as "schizophrenia". Or "psychosis".
Even among the people, who have successfully overcome what psychiatry calls "schizophrenia", there are many who would agree with Mark Foster. Joanne Greenberg and Norwegian Arnhild Lauveng are just a couple of them, referring to themselves as having been sick, having suffered from "schizophrenia". Anyhow, there are also quite a few people, and I am one of them, who do not define themselves as having been sick, as having suffered from this "severe mental illness" called "schizophrenia", although they've perfectly fitted the criteria for the label. Because they don't agree that it is sick to react to life. And here Mark Foster omits to mention an important item on his list about adverse life events: childhood trauma (that comes in all imaginable shapes, not just as physical, or sexual abuse). Only if this item is omitted, "schizophrenia" (and other "severe mental illness" such as "bipolar disorder", or "major depressive disorder", for that sake) can be explained away as being true illnesses, the manifestation of an individual flaw, be it genetic, biological (biological psychiatry), or developmental (Freud), and not understood as an actually life-saving (sic) response to life-threatening circumstances. And this leads me to Mark Foster calling these responses "debilitating" and "life-threatening". I know a lot of people, and as mentioed I am one of them myself, who would answer him to this statement that they developed "symptoms" because they had no other choice if they wanted to survive in a for them life-threatening situation, that their ability to develop "symptoms", to react in the life-threatening situation they found themselves in, actually saved their life, and that therefor they don't see this ability as "debilitating", a weakness, an illness, or anything along those lines, but actually as a strength. And indeed, life that doesn't react to its environment isn't fit to survive in it. If we're talking a single cell, or a complex organism such as a human being. Fact is, people do not die from "mental illness". They survive thanks to it, and if they die, they do so because their experience, their life story, they themselves, are explained away as "diseased", and not understood. It is not "mental illness" itself that is life-threatening. It is the fear and lack of understanding that people who react in an extreme way to extreme circumstances are met with.
Given these very different definitions of "severe mental illness", and given the fact that we do not have scientific evidence to prove one definition more true than the other, while we do have "anecdotal" evidence that may well be interpreted to support a view of the latter definition as more true than the illness-definition (cf. that most people do not refer to themselves as "diseased" but after they've been in contact with psychiatry, and that they actually often resist being defined as "diseased", and need a whole lot of "treatment" before they're ready to submit to this definition), I wonder how Mark Foster justifies his statement.
This is a complex matter, and there would be a lot more to say to it, too much for a comment on facebook...
One last thing: Mark Foster writes that the motivation to become a medical professional for most people is that they want to help others. I don't doubt that. But what I find a far more interesting question is what is the motivation behind wanting to help others? Is it imaginable that it, at least in some cases, is a profound feeling of being helpless oneself?...
Oh and, why I mention the talk by the psychiatrist: the way fear was presented by her, not fear of something, but simply fear, a meaningless symptom of a meaningless illness, turned fear, almost magically you might say, from being a natural human emotion into something completely alien (as in alienation... ) to human nature. Fear was no longer an emotion. It was a symptom, and as such it had to be feared... This is how we alienate people from the labelled, and the labelled from themselves. This is what the "stigma", the discrimination and prejudice is made of. Us and them. Human beings and "psychotics"/"schizophrenics". Sad.
Anyhow, the reason why I thought I'd write a new post is this post on Rossa Forbes' blog Holistic Recovery from Schizophrenia about the latest of Mark Foster's letters to Robert Whitaker, that had me remember another of his letters, this one, and my comment to it, originally posted at a Facebook thread. Since not everybody is on Facebook, and can go and read it there, here it is:
A very insightful piece, yes. Anyhow, some critical thoughts:
- "Some of my patients are very complicated with severe emotional or even psychotic disturbances, but those are rare."
What I read between the lines here is that emotional "disturbances" are different from "psychotic" ones. In how far? I went to a talk about "psychosis", given by a psychiatrist, back in November last year. According to this psychiatrist, and also according to what I've been reading virtually everywhere where "psychosis" is defined, fear is one of the main "symptoms" of "psychosis". Fear, and anger (with anger being the emotional response to fear). Fear and anger are emotions. Now, the list of "symptoms" for "psychosis" also includes so-called "thought disorders", "hallucinations", "delusions", etc., so you might say, there are other than emotional "disturbances" involved in "psychosis". However, my personal experience is that at the core of all these other "disturbances" are fear and anger. These emotions are what creates all other "disturbances". Just like sadness, grieving a loss, usually creates other than emotional "disturbances" ( inability to concentrate, withdrawal from social contexts, etc.). So, my take on this is that "psychotic disturbances", too, are emotional "disturbances".
- "What I mean is that most patients do not show signs of a pathological disturbance in their mental functioning. Rather, they are sad, lonely, anxious, frustrated, disillusioned, confused, scared--all in all, they seem very human, suffering from some of the mood changes that are endemic to the human experience. In the vast majority of these cases, major social and environmental factors are the clear precipitants of their symptoms: death in the family, job loss, marital struggles, substance abuse."
Basically, the same applies to this quote, and my question here would be, exactly where do we draw the line between what Mark Foster calls a "pathological disturbance" on the one hand, and existential, to human nature very natural, emotional suffering, "endemic to the human experience", as Mark Foster says? Or, to maybe push it to extremes, but nevertheless, where do we draw the line between naturally suffering human being, and sick-in-the-head lesser-than--human being? And who has the power to draw this line, on what basis? Towards the end of the article Mark Foster writes: "Some diseases, some mental illnesses, are severe, debilitating, life-threatening." He doesn't name which diseases he refers to, but when "mental illness" is talked about there's always one specific label that, if no other of all the labels in the DSM, seems to simply have to be a true disease: schizophrenia. Because if a reaction to life as extreme as what is labelled "schizophrenia" is just that, a reaction to life, and not a true disease, then no label in the DSM is a true disease. Psychiatry as a medical speciality stands and falls with "schizophrenia", and how we define the experience labelled as "schizophrenia". Or "psychosis".
Even among the people, who have successfully overcome what psychiatry calls "schizophrenia", there are many who would agree with Mark Foster. Joanne Greenberg and Norwegian Arnhild Lauveng are just a couple of them, referring to themselves as having been sick, having suffered from "schizophrenia". Anyhow, there are also quite a few people, and I am one of them, who do not define themselves as having been sick, as having suffered from this "severe mental illness" called "schizophrenia", although they've perfectly fitted the criteria for the label. Because they don't agree that it is sick to react to life. And here Mark Foster omits to mention an important item on his list about adverse life events: childhood trauma (that comes in all imaginable shapes, not just as physical, or sexual abuse). Only if this item is omitted, "schizophrenia" (and other "severe mental illness" such as "bipolar disorder", or "major depressive disorder", for that sake) can be explained away as being true illnesses, the manifestation of an individual flaw, be it genetic, biological (biological psychiatry), or developmental (Freud), and not understood as an actually life-saving (sic) response to life-threatening circumstances. And this leads me to Mark Foster calling these responses "debilitating" and "life-threatening". I know a lot of people, and as mentioed I am one of them myself, who would answer him to this statement that they developed "symptoms" because they had no other choice if they wanted to survive in a for them life-threatening situation, that their ability to develop "symptoms", to react in the life-threatening situation they found themselves in, actually saved their life, and that therefor they don't see this ability as "debilitating", a weakness, an illness, or anything along those lines, but actually as a strength. And indeed, life that doesn't react to its environment isn't fit to survive in it. If we're talking a single cell, or a complex organism such as a human being. Fact is, people do not die from "mental illness". They survive thanks to it, and if they die, they do so because their experience, their life story, they themselves, are explained away as "diseased", and not understood. It is not "mental illness" itself that is life-threatening. It is the fear and lack of understanding that people who react in an extreme way to extreme circumstances are met with.
Given these very different definitions of "severe mental illness", and given the fact that we do not have scientific evidence to prove one definition more true than the other, while we do have "anecdotal" evidence that may well be interpreted to support a view of the latter definition as more true than the illness-definition (cf. that most people do not refer to themselves as "diseased" but after they've been in contact with psychiatry, and that they actually often resist being defined as "diseased", and need a whole lot of "treatment" before they're ready to submit to this definition), I wonder how Mark Foster justifies his statement.
This is a complex matter, and there would be a lot more to say to it, too much for a comment on facebook...
One last thing: Mark Foster writes that the motivation to become a medical professional for most people is that they want to help others. I don't doubt that. But what I find a far more interesting question is what is the motivation behind wanting to help others? Is it imaginable that it, at least in some cases, is a profound feeling of being helpless oneself?...
Oh and, why I mention the talk by the psychiatrist: the way fear was presented by her, not fear of something, but simply fear, a meaningless symptom of a meaningless illness, turned fear, almost magically you might say, from being a natural human emotion into something completely alien (as in alienation... ) to human nature. Fear was no longer an emotion. It was a symptom, and as such it had to be feared... This is how we alienate people from the labelled, and the labelled from themselves. This is what the "stigma", the discrimination and prejudice is made of. Us and them. Human beings and "psychotics"/"schizophrenics". Sad.
Sunday, 19 December 2010
David M. Allen - Making fun of child abuse
Back in April this year, I wrote in a post on this blog: "Visiting David M. Allan, M.D.'s blog, your first impression might be a rather positive one. He seems to have got at least something. And yes, he has got something." Today, reading this entry on his blog, I take back my words from April. David M. Allen hasn't got anything. Not a thing. Or he wouldn't make fun of child abuse.
Friday, 8 October 2010
Monday, 27 September 2010
The NEC apologizes to Will Hall
For whatever reason -- could it be the massive protest on Facebook?... -- the organizers of Alternatives 2010, the NEC, apologized to Will Hall, and restored his workshop in its original form. Will Hall has agreed to withdraw his cancellation, and to do the workshop as planned. Yay! Have a great conference, everybody!
http://www.madnessradio.net/update-coming-off-medication-workshop-restored
http://www.madnessradio.net/update-coming-off-medication-workshop-restored
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Alternatives 2010 censors Will Hall
Yup, first they try to keep Bob Whitaker from talking, and now they've decided that Will Hall may not include coming off drugs at his workshop. A workshop about choice in regard to drugs, where you may not talk about coming off?? Sounds sort of meaningless, I'd say. "Alternatives" my ass!
Here's the press release:
MENTAL HEALTH CONFERENCE CENSORSHIP
Coming Off Medications Workshop Censored at 'Alternatives 2010' Mental Health Conference
Alternatives, the mental health consumer/survivor conference with more than 1,000 participants annually, has withdrawn its previous approval for a workshop on coming off psychiatric medications.
The workshop, based in a pro-treatment choice, harm-reduction philosophy, was to share information about continuing, reducing, or coming off medications. After approving the workshop in June, the National Empowerment Center, which organizes the conference to be held in Anaheim California, made a last-minute decision to change the title and description to remove any reference to coming off medications. Will Hall, an internationally-recognized schizophrenia survivor and radio host who was set to lead the workshop, decided that he could not go along with the decision and will not be attending the conference. "Coming off medications is a topic vital to wellness and recovery, and should not be censored," he said.
The controversial move by the National Empowerment Center comes in the wake of a recent similar decision to bar Robert Whitaker, a Pulitzer finalist investigative journalist whose work spotlights medication dangers and growing evidence that non-drug alternatives work better for some patients. Whitaker was restored as a conference keynote speaker only after mental health advocates mobilized quickly on the internet to challenge the decision.
The annual Alternatives conference is organized by consumer/survivor groups and federally funded. With workshops ranging from wellness, youth, housing, employment, advocacy and diversity issues, Alternatives is the country's most prominent gathering for mental health consumers, who attend from all US states and as far away as Guam. Medication issues, however, have consistently been excluded from the program.
Hall, who works as a therapist, says he is not anti-medication and does not give medical advice, but instead educates individuals, families, and health care providers to make more informed choices. "People are caught between pro-drug marketing by pharmaceutical companies and the anti-drug message of some activists. We need honest and unbiased information about psychiatric medications, including assessing drug risks and discussing how to come off drugs safely when they aren't right for you. Many people find medications helpful, but there are huge dangers involved, and sometimes it's better to reduce medication or slowly go off."
After several hospitalizations and a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder schizophrenia, Hall has been medication-free for more than 17 years. He says a combination of holistic health, support groups, and spiritual practice nurtured his recovery from mental illness, but believes that "each person's path to recovery is different. My work fills a great need for information, and it's a shame this topic is censored at a national conference that claims to be dedicated to
wellness and calls itself 'Alternatives.'"
Hall is the author of the Harm Reduction Guide to Coming Off Psychiatric Medications, published by mental health peer groups The Icarus Project and Freedom Center. The guide, available freely on the internet, has been distributed to more than 15,000 people and is available in Spanish and German translations.
http://theicarusproject.net/HarmReductionGuideComingOffPsychDrugs
--
http://www.willhall.net
http://www.madnessradio.net/coming-off-medications-workshop-censored
Here's the press release:
MENTAL HEALTH CONFERENCE CENSORSHIP
Coming Off Medications Workshop Censored at 'Alternatives 2010' Mental Health Conference
Alternatives, the mental health consumer/survivor conference with more than 1,000 participants annually, has withdrawn its previous approval for a workshop on coming off psychiatric medications.
The workshop, based in a pro-treatment choice, harm-reduction philosophy, was to share information about continuing, reducing, or coming off medications. After approving the workshop in June, the National Empowerment Center, which organizes the conference to be held in Anaheim California, made a last-minute decision to change the title and description to remove any reference to coming off medications. Will Hall, an internationally-recognized schizophrenia survivor and radio host who was set to lead the workshop, decided that he could not go along with the decision and will not be attending the conference. "Coming off medications is a topic vital to wellness and recovery, and should not be censored," he said.
The controversial move by the National Empowerment Center comes in the wake of a recent similar decision to bar Robert Whitaker, a Pulitzer finalist investigative journalist whose work spotlights medication dangers and growing evidence that non-drug alternatives work better for some patients. Whitaker was restored as a conference keynote speaker only after mental health advocates mobilized quickly on the internet to challenge the decision.
The annual Alternatives conference is organized by consumer/survivor groups and federally funded. With workshops ranging from wellness, youth, housing, employment, advocacy and diversity issues, Alternatives is the country's most prominent gathering for mental health consumers, who attend from all US states and as far away as Guam. Medication issues, however, have consistently been excluded from the program.
Hall, who works as a therapist, says he is not anti-medication and does not give medical advice, but instead educates individuals, families, and health care providers to make more informed choices. "People are caught between pro-drug marketing by pharmaceutical companies and the anti-drug message of some activists. We need honest and unbiased information about psychiatric medications, including assessing drug risks and discussing how to come off drugs safely when they aren't right for you. Many people find medications helpful, but there are huge dangers involved, and sometimes it's better to reduce medication or slowly go off."
After several hospitalizations and a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder schizophrenia, Hall has been medication-free for more than 17 years. He says a combination of holistic health, support groups, and spiritual practice nurtured his recovery from mental illness, but believes that "each person's path to recovery is different. My work fills a great need for information, and it's a shame this topic is censored at a national conference that claims to be dedicated to
wellness and calls itself 'Alternatives.'"
Hall is the author of the Harm Reduction Guide to Coming Off Psychiatric Medications, published by mental health peer groups The Icarus Project and Freedom Center. The guide, available freely on the internet, has been distributed to more than 15,000 people and is available in Spanish and German translations.
http://theicarusproject.net/HarmReductionGuideComingOffPsychDrugs
--
http://www.willhall.net
http://www.madnessradio.net/coming-off-medications-workshop-censored
Saturday, 18 September 2010
The perfect parent
If everything else doesn't pan out, there's one thing you can do to achieve god-like status, perfection, in life: become a parent. At least to judge from the reaction of lots of parents to the least suggestion that maybe, just maybe, they didn't only have an influence on any success achieved by their offspring, but maybe, just maybe, also on one or the other failure, suffering, in their kids' lives, these parents seem to think they don't have to take the least responsibility for their parenting as being a parent in their opinion obviously equals to being the perfect parent. Being a parent seems to, automatically, turn you into some kind of supernatural being, infallible, and beyond any criticism. By definition there's no such thing as "bad parenting", there's no such thing as child abuse, neglect, or any kind of dysfunctional communication patterns acted out by parents towards their children. Parents don't make mistakes. To insinuate that they maybe, just maybe, are no less imperfect, fallible, and human as everybody else, and to ask them to take responsibility for their imperfection, their fallibility, and their humanity, borders to a cardinal sin.
Lola's is a quite interesting comment in this regard. Her daughter's upbringing was nothing less than perfect. No one, least of all Lola herself, made as much as one single mistake raising her daughter. It was all beer and skittles. Well, until "mental illness" struck, like a bolt from the blue. Never mind that alone reading about a "mentally ill" mother (Lola), that is a mother with major "issues", which, since she herself ascribes them to "mental illness", hardly can be anything but unresolved -- and as we all know, unresolved trauma inevitably gets acted out and thus passed on to any children, if there are any --, and about an "ex", into the bargain also this "ex" with "mental health issues", which means divorce, would, and should!, have everybody with just a minimum of insight into the human psyche shudder, and wonder how the kids cope in such a dysfunctional environment. Never mind that reading about all this obvious dysfunctionality wouldn't, and shouldn't!, have anyone with just a minimum of insight into the human psyche be the least surprised when they hear that a kid raised in this dysfunctionality reacts to it developing coping strategies that then, ignoring any insight into the human psyche, and maintaining the delusion of the perfect parent, conveniently can be labelled "mental illness".
There they are, the kids. Initially wanted, not for their own sake, but as an extension of their parents (' egos), whose only purpose in life it is to confirm their parents' infallibility, their god-like perfection as persons. But God help the kids, if they can't or won't fulfil this purpose, if they have the rudeness, selfishness, and ungratefulness to protest and thus expose their parents' violence towards them! Since the violence can't and must not be, in their parents' minds, since acknowledging to it would equal to having to give up on their "God delusion", it has to be the child who's imperfect, indeed defective, diseased.
So, please! psychiatry, step in and silence these rude, selfish, and ungrateful brats' completely unfounded accusations against us with your (pseudo-)scientific, medical authority! Once and for all. Please, label these rude, selfish, and ungrateful brats insane, that is whatever they say or do a symptom of "mental illness", and thereby invalid, not worth being listened to, and please, if ever you can, shut them up, free us from having to hear them scream out in pain over the violence we've inflicted on them!!!
Which also is quite interesting, is to watch some of these perfect parents go even further, not settling for having the rude, selfish, and ungrateful brat silenced, but additionally, in both hugging themselves, and fishing for the sympathy of people with just a minimum of insight into the human psyche, washing their hands of this dirty job of silencing the brat, and accusing psychiatry of being violent. These are the parents who complain about "misdiagnoses", side effects, lack of "treatment" efficacy, lack of services, and so on, and so on.
Sorry people, you have nothing to complain about. You asked for their help, and you got it. At least, they do whatever is in their power to meet your expectations. There's no way how psychiatry, or any other institution, ever could silence your children, and at the same time make them the successes, you initially wanted them to be. Success in life presupposes a language of one's own, through which the self can express itself. No language, no success. You asked for it yourselves. You asked for your children to be turned into non-persons, into a "mental illness", a failure.
You have no right whatsoever to judge and condemn people like Joseph Biederman or the Schofields. What these people do is nothing else but what you asked them to do, respectively what you do yourselves. You have no right to blame the pharmaceutical companies for pushing drugs with debilitating, and partly fatal "side" effects, and covering these "side" effects up. You asked for your children to be debilitated, and rendered lifeless. That you asked for this to happen in a metaphorical way, debilitating and killing your childrens' protesting self, doesn't make a difference. And you also asked for the cover-up. Since no perfect parent would ask for their child to be denied a self.
Psychiatry didn't establish itself, out of the blue. Just like your children didn't become "mentally ill" out of the blue. You asked for psychiatry to be established, in exactly the way it appears today, just like your behavior had your children react to it, and become "mentally ill".
Lastly, there's the returning "walk a mile in my shoes!"-thing. Well, I have. I've been about just as unconscious, unaware, and irresponsible, as these perfect parents are, or choose to be. Because, as mentioned before, the moment you know more than one side of the story, you're not innocent anymore. You stand with a choice, and with the entire responsibility for whatever choice you decide to make. And no, you don't even need to hear another side of the story from some critical professional or survivors, or whoever. You just need to listen to your children's side of the story. You just need to set yourself aside for once, and really listen to them. Not to whatever comes out of their mouth after they were "brought back" to seeing the world through your eyes, while they're drugged up over their own eyeballs, but while they're the most themselves, in "psychosis". You just have to try and walk a mile in your children's shoes.
Apart from all this, I can only wonder why someone, who thinks psych drugs, especially neuroleptics, are not designed for someone like her daughter, read between the lines: while they sure as hell are designed for the "real loonies", those not "misdiagnosed" -- and the concept of "misdiagnosis" always implies that there would be such a thing as correct diagnosis -- kept visiting and commenting on a blog authored by such a "real loony", playing up to this "real loony", who, into the bargain, isn't on any drugs, and, what more is, is a pronounced opponent to psych drugs and labels, and the institution of psychiatry as such. I can only wonder why someone who obviously firmly believes in biologically based brain diseases, at the same time, and repeatedly, joins in whenever there's a call for Soteria Houses. Soteria wasn't created to treat biologically based brain diseases. It was created out of the belief that the alleged biologically based brain diseases indeed were personal, existential crises. -- And the outcomes Soteria produced confirmed this belief to be true, btw. -- So, what's the big idea behind this sailing under false colors, behind this hypocrisy? Why not simply stand by one's convictions? Looking for sympathy? Seeking absolution for one's discriminatory us-and-them-thinking, even from the "real loonies" themselves? I have to disappoint you, X. No sympathy nor absolution for violence available here.
_______________
Since somebody pointed out to me that, especially for people who haven't been following X's blog and/or her comments, here or elsewhere, for some time, it might look like I condemn X on the basis of one single remark about psych drugs on her blog: No, I don't. This is what I wrote in reply to this somebody, and I hope, it contributes to a better understanding of what I react to. -- Also I decided to anonymize. As the above mentioned somebody also points out to me, X is by far not the only one to engage in this kind of behavior, so, it's probably a little unfair to mention only her by name:
X has puzzled me for the entire about 2 years I've been following her blog. Lots of critical comments, asking for Soteria Houses, when everybody else was, slamming the Schofields, when everybody else did, or Joseph Biederman, when everybody else did, criticizing one or the other pharmaceutical company, when everybody else did, etc. etc. (and "everybody else" of course means a certain clique in the blogosphere). Still, at the same time there also always were these small inconsistencies. "Misdiagnosis", over and over again, and as if there was such a thing as a correct diagnosis, mentioning "psychosis" and "schizophrenia" as if they were valid labels, just not for her daughter, and also that over and over again. Not just once. But she also successfully avoided to ever take a clear stand, whether she does believe in the labels, in the drugs, in biopsychiatry, or not. So, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. And, frankly, I didn't believe my own eyes when I read her comments at "Lola's story", that quite clearly, and clearer than ever, state that she does believe in the righteousness of for instance a "bipolar"-label for, and the drugging for it of, kids. I mean, read the comments at Fid's blog. Lola writes about 6-year-olds who get labelled and drugged, and are helped by it, and no objection from X. She agrees. Lola's her friend, she admires Lola, Lola's right when she says, kids are helped by psychiatry, its labels, its drugs. I can only conclude that this does not add up with slamming the Schofields for having their 6-year-old daughter labelled and drugged. Not at all. She did it, because everybody else did it. The same applies to her slamming Biederman on her blog. One minute she condemns the man, also joins in whenever people voice ethical concerns about the labelling and drugging of children, the next she agrees that "bipolar" in kids is real. I ask her, at Fid's blog, if this really is what she believes. Yes, it is.
One thing is that I, under these circumstances, couldn't disagree more with her. And I think, I myself don't make a secret of my points of view on my blog. It's pretty clear where I stand. [So, it should have been clear to X, too.] Another is that I a) really don't understand why on earth she doesn't simply say so, when she disagrees, but keeps giving the impression that she would agree with people, when obviously she doesn't, and b) can't do with hypocrites. I actually have more sympathy with someone like Lola than with X. Lola never came to my blog, or made a comment elsewhere, pretending to agree when in truth she didn't.
Additionally, I want to emphasize -- if anybody is in doubt -- that a disagreeing opinion alone, brought forward in a factual manner, has my full respect. What I have no respect for whatsoever is hypocrisy.
Lola's is a quite interesting comment in this regard. Her daughter's upbringing was nothing less than perfect. No one, least of all Lola herself, made as much as one single mistake raising her daughter. It was all beer and skittles. Well, until "mental illness" struck, like a bolt from the blue. Never mind that alone reading about a "mentally ill" mother (Lola), that is a mother with major "issues", which, since she herself ascribes them to "mental illness", hardly can be anything but unresolved -- and as we all know, unresolved trauma inevitably gets acted out and thus passed on to any children, if there are any --, and about an "ex", into the bargain also this "ex" with "mental health issues", which means divorce, would, and should!, have everybody with just a minimum of insight into the human psyche shudder, and wonder how the kids cope in such a dysfunctional environment. Never mind that reading about all this obvious dysfunctionality wouldn't, and shouldn't!, have anyone with just a minimum of insight into the human psyche be the least surprised when they hear that a kid raised in this dysfunctionality reacts to it developing coping strategies that then, ignoring any insight into the human psyche, and maintaining the delusion of the perfect parent, conveniently can be labelled "mental illness".
There they are, the kids. Initially wanted, not for their own sake, but as an extension of their parents (' egos), whose only purpose in life it is to confirm their parents' infallibility, their god-like perfection as persons. But God help the kids, if they can't or won't fulfil this purpose, if they have the rudeness, selfishness, and ungratefulness to protest and thus expose their parents' violence towards them! Since the violence can't and must not be, in their parents' minds, since acknowledging to it would equal to having to give up on their "God delusion", it has to be the child who's imperfect, indeed defective, diseased.
So, please! psychiatry, step in and silence these rude, selfish, and ungrateful brats' completely unfounded accusations against us with your (pseudo-)scientific, medical authority! Once and for all. Please, label these rude, selfish, and ungrateful brats insane, that is whatever they say or do a symptom of "mental illness", and thereby invalid, not worth being listened to, and please, if ever you can, shut them up, free us from having to hear them scream out in pain over the violence we've inflicted on them!!!
Which also is quite interesting, is to watch some of these perfect parents go even further, not settling for having the rude, selfish, and ungrateful brat silenced, but additionally, in both hugging themselves, and fishing for the sympathy of people with just a minimum of insight into the human psyche, washing their hands of this dirty job of silencing the brat, and accusing psychiatry of being violent. These are the parents who complain about "misdiagnoses", side effects, lack of "treatment" efficacy, lack of services, and so on, and so on.
Sorry people, you have nothing to complain about. You asked for their help, and you got it. At least, they do whatever is in their power to meet your expectations. There's no way how psychiatry, or any other institution, ever could silence your children, and at the same time make them the successes, you initially wanted them to be. Success in life presupposes a language of one's own, through which the self can express itself. No language, no success. You asked for it yourselves. You asked for your children to be turned into non-persons, into a "mental illness", a failure.
You have no right whatsoever to judge and condemn people like Joseph Biederman or the Schofields. What these people do is nothing else but what you asked them to do, respectively what you do yourselves. You have no right to blame the pharmaceutical companies for pushing drugs with debilitating, and partly fatal "side" effects, and covering these "side" effects up. You asked for your children to be debilitated, and rendered lifeless. That you asked for this to happen in a metaphorical way, debilitating and killing your childrens' protesting self, doesn't make a difference. And you also asked for the cover-up. Since no perfect parent would ask for their child to be denied a self.
Psychiatry didn't establish itself, out of the blue. Just like your children didn't become "mentally ill" out of the blue. You asked for psychiatry to be established, in exactly the way it appears today, just like your behavior had your children react to it, and become "mentally ill".
Lastly, there's the returning "walk a mile in my shoes!"-thing. Well, I have. I've been about just as unconscious, unaware, and irresponsible, as these perfect parents are, or choose to be. Because, as mentioned before, the moment you know more than one side of the story, you're not innocent anymore. You stand with a choice, and with the entire responsibility for whatever choice you decide to make. And no, you don't even need to hear another side of the story from some critical professional or survivors, or whoever. You just need to listen to your children's side of the story. You just need to set yourself aside for once, and really listen to them. Not to whatever comes out of their mouth after they were "brought back" to seeing the world through your eyes, while they're drugged up over their own eyeballs, but while they're the most themselves, in "psychosis". You just have to try and walk a mile in your children's shoes.
Apart from all this, I can only wonder why someone, who thinks psych drugs, especially neuroleptics, are not designed for someone like her daughter, read between the lines: while they sure as hell are designed for the "real loonies", those not "misdiagnosed" -- and the concept of "misdiagnosis" always implies that there would be such a thing as correct diagnosis -- kept visiting and commenting on a blog authored by such a "real loony", playing up to this "real loony", who, into the bargain, isn't on any drugs, and, what more is, is a pronounced opponent to psych drugs and labels, and the institution of psychiatry as such. I can only wonder why someone who obviously firmly believes in biologically based brain diseases, at the same time, and repeatedly, joins in whenever there's a call for Soteria Houses. Soteria wasn't created to treat biologically based brain diseases. It was created out of the belief that the alleged biologically based brain diseases indeed were personal, existential crises. -- And the outcomes Soteria produced confirmed this belief to be true, btw. -- So, what's the big idea behind this sailing under false colors, behind this hypocrisy? Why not simply stand by one's convictions? Looking for sympathy? Seeking absolution for one's discriminatory us-and-them-thinking, even from the "real loonies" themselves? I have to disappoint you, X. No sympathy nor absolution for violence available here.
_______________
Since somebody pointed out to me that, especially for people who haven't been following X's blog and/or her comments, here or elsewhere, for some time, it might look like I condemn X on the basis of one single remark about psych drugs on her blog: No, I don't. This is what I wrote in reply to this somebody, and I hope, it contributes to a better understanding of what I react to. -- Also I decided to anonymize. As the above mentioned somebody also points out to me, X is by far not the only one to engage in this kind of behavior, so, it's probably a little unfair to mention only her by name:
X has puzzled me for the entire about 2 years I've been following her blog. Lots of critical comments, asking for Soteria Houses, when everybody else was, slamming the Schofields, when everybody else did, or Joseph Biederman, when everybody else did, criticizing one or the other pharmaceutical company, when everybody else did, etc. etc. (and "everybody else" of course means a certain clique in the blogosphere). Still, at the same time there also always were these small inconsistencies. "Misdiagnosis", over and over again, and as if there was such a thing as a correct diagnosis, mentioning "psychosis" and "schizophrenia" as if they were valid labels, just not for her daughter, and also that over and over again. Not just once. But she also successfully avoided to ever take a clear stand, whether she does believe in the labels, in the drugs, in biopsychiatry, or not. So, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. And, frankly, I didn't believe my own eyes when I read her comments at "Lola's story", that quite clearly, and clearer than ever, state that she does believe in the righteousness of for instance a "bipolar"-label for, and the drugging for it of, kids. I mean, read the comments at Fid's blog. Lola writes about 6-year-olds who get labelled and drugged, and are helped by it, and no objection from X. She agrees. Lola's her friend, she admires Lola, Lola's right when she says, kids are helped by psychiatry, its labels, its drugs. I can only conclude that this does not add up with slamming the Schofields for having their 6-year-old daughter labelled and drugged. Not at all. She did it, because everybody else did it. The same applies to her slamming Biederman on her blog. One minute she condemns the man, also joins in whenever people voice ethical concerns about the labelling and drugging of children, the next she agrees that "bipolar" in kids is real. I ask her, at Fid's blog, if this really is what she believes. Yes, it is.
One thing is that I, under these circumstances, couldn't disagree more with her. And I think, I myself don't make a secret of my points of view on my blog. It's pretty clear where I stand. [So, it should have been clear to X, too.] Another is that I a) really don't understand why on earth she doesn't simply say so, when she disagrees, but keeps giving the impression that she would agree with people, when obviously she doesn't, and b) can't do with hypocrites. I actually have more sympathy with someone like Lola than with X. Lola never came to my blog, or made a comment elsewhere, pretending to agree when in truth she didn't.
Additionally, I want to emphasize -- if anybody is in doubt -- that a disagreeing opinion alone, brought forward in a factual manner, has my full respect. What I have no respect for whatsoever is hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
