The psychiatric protection order for the “battered mental patient”
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1449 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1449
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Ok I finally know the context of the quote and read Cosgrove's
article.......
To tell you the truth I wouldn't even try to respond to that it sounds
like almost absolute gibberish to me. That suicide preventable through
medications as if it has nothing to do with the magic of emotions that are
meant to be free but become imprisoned here on the earth when people abuse
the vessel called the human body which we are given to experience them
with.
Also you said that you objected to it being said that you were handing out
untested poisins to people in the guise of medicines.........Neither I nor
Kathy have never said that the medicines were untested what I have said
the whole time (the whole time) is that the only tests you can really
verify is that they create a chemical imbalance and that there is no proof
that there was one that they needed to adjust to begin with so in reality
the proof that there is about these medications does prove them to be akin
to poisins..
Dendron www.mindfreedom.com had a hunger strike and challenged the medical
community via the American Psychiatric Association and also the National
Alliance for the Mentally Ill to come up with proof that there was a
chemical imbalance (which is why they say drugs are necessary)....what
these two organizations came up with evidence (which was looked at by a
panel of scientists) was a text book used at Colleges and University's.
After having looked at the text book the panel had to decide that there
really was no proof for the claim of a chemical imbalance in the book but
there was very clear evidence that they couldn't make such claims. Before
this the two psychiatric organizations stated that they weren't going to
enter a debate about idealogy and so in essence already showing that that
is what it was about and not about science.
There is also proof that psychiatric medication create a chemical
imbalance. The ONLY time a person with a supposed mental illness turns up
having a chemical imbalance is when they have been on medications for a
long enough time that the medications create the imbalance!!!!!
It also really concerns me that you would say that I said the
medicines weren't tested when I have said exactly the opposite for I don't
know how many posts and stated they they have been proven to create a
chemical imbalance.
I think you need to reassess your cognative abilities if when I have
stated the same thing over and over again that you simply see it for
something different than it states in plain English over and over again!
Also!when someone has a toothache and they are given medications they
are not told that it's because they have a chemical imbalance by the pharm
industry......... if there was proof that these medications would create a
chemical imbalance you would be required to state these dangers inherent
in what was said to only take the pain away but in the psychiatric
institutions that's different they can force people to aquire chemical
imbalances.
But when I point out that they do this you say I am saying that the
medicines are untested!?
When the tests don't prove what you want to see you are simply
allowed to disregard them?
The drugs have been tested!
They are abusive!
Competing interests:
I'm a pacifist so I wouldn't want to be given honors by scientology.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Roelof and Kathleen
I do not deny your experience, why do you deny mine? I am taking the
flak in this debate for GP colleagues who do not seek to control patients
but sincerely attempt to alleviate human suffering. Some of my friends who
are doctors suffer depression and take the same antidepressants they
prescribe their patients.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Oh dear, I was only trying to make a point about the demonstrably
incorrect statement that suicide was always preventable, and I seem to
have stirred up a storm of dissaproval, some of which I find hard to
follow, directed at me personally and by implication all of my GP
colleagues who ever use psychotropic drugs to relieve the suffering of the
fellow human beings who are our patients and who ask us to help.
Thankfully I am not required to defend my own medical competence and
practice in this forum, but I do object to the implication that British
GPs are poisoning our patients with untested substances because we are in
the pockets of big pharma and we are too lazy and stupid to do better.
Standard practice when approached by a distressed patient seeking
help for mental problems (they come to us, we do not go out searching for
them) is to listen empathetically and reflectively, discuss the patient's
feelings, explore possible causes, and then make an agreed management plan
which may or may not involve medication. Counselling, reassurance, referal
to third parties are all possibilities, as is advising the patient that
their problem is relatively minor and will get better by itself if no
intervention is made. However, ethical and tried medications with
acceptable side efects are available which may alleviate mental pain just
as analgesics may alleviate physical pain, and to refuse to offer them
because of misguided zealotry is as questionable as to refuse analgesia in
a case of toothache. The unsectioned patient is of course at liberty to
decline treatment or go elsewhere.
I manage depressed and anxious patients broadly along the above
lines, but if they prefer homeopathy, colour therapy, Tai-Chi, herbal
remedies, adopting a stray dog, sending incomprehensible messages to the
internet or other avenues, its a free country and they can go for it.
I can only apologise abjectly, in sackcloth and ashes, for confusion
I may have caused in my initial post by not citing Dr Cosgroves letter as
the source of my quote concerning the preventability of all suicides. I
stand by my repudiation of this statement. Suicide is a choice, sometimes
no doubt made while the balance of the demand is disturbed, but a choice.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I almost missed some of this
first he quotes that he was quoted to say that
he was stating something which would require some sort
of telepathy or the ability to hear voices because the writing stays the
same.......
His whole statement (with the "quote" of the .....quote......)
..."Stephen Hayes states the following:
"....In a civilised and economically developed country, suicide is
preventable and its antecedents are treatable by psychiatric medicinal
treatment.... "
I was not stating this, I was quoting the statement made by a
previous poster in order to diasagree with it. I do not believe that
suicide is always preventable, although probably it sometimes is and
doctors try to prevent it. There is no way of knowing how often we
succeed, unless a trial is proposed randomising depressed patients
presenting to the doctor into normal treatment (which does not always
involve drugs) and telling them to go away and pull themselves together.
I am sorry if I did not make this sufficiently clear.
Every day in my work as a GP men and women come into my office, often
break down in tears, and say something like "It's doing my head in doctor,
I can't handle it, you've got to give me something."
Typically in the context of NHS General Practice I can give them 7 or
8 minutes, maybe 15 if I run late, as there are 18 or 20 other patients to
be seen in a session, typically 2 or 3 of whom will be primarily
presenting with unhappiness sufficiently distressing to make them seek
medical attention. Very likely some of them would be better off seeking
the help of a minister of religion, a secular counsellor, poetrry or
philospohy, or learning to live with the sadness which is part of the
human condition. However, it is to the doctor they have come, and they
want "happy pills".
I am quite prepared to accept that psychotropic medicines are not the
whole answer to their problems, but they do seem to help some people. Let
those who have non-medical solutions to unhappiness and "insanity" stand
forth and show us a better way!
OK you said
"I do not believe that suicide is always preventable, although
probably it sometimes is and doctors try to prevent it. There is no way of
knowing how often we succeed, unless a trial is proposed randomising
depressed patients presenting to the doctor into normal treatment (which
does not always involve drugs) and telling them to go away and pull
themselves together."
There is no way of knowing when you succeed!?
unless you try not giving them drugs (which seems to be that you do give
them drugs when there is no proof of a chemical imbalance and then suggest
you not give them the things you have no proof of being necessary in order
to then determine whether or not NOT assaulting them with things that
haven't been proven to help would help them!?)
This then has to be done in a scientific manner.
Not giving people things that hasn't been proven to be necessary to see
whether or not you never had to give them to them because you are giving
them things that aren't neccesary.
My whole point to begin with before getting caught in this
..............whirlygig.
My point I thought to make was that when you have an honest relationship
with your patients and can talk to them about whether things help then you
would be able to determine what helps without having to legitimize it with
"proof" but then you mention asking them to pull themselves together (is
this because you are someone offering drugs that are supposed to help them
but only have been proven to create chemical imbalances and this is
disturbing to them?). It seems to be that the only way there will be proof
that they don't need the drugs (which there isn't proof that they are
needed) is if they go pull themselves together instead...........
Is this why you offer drugs to see whether they can do without them? If
they can then they have pulled themselves together? So being a doctor is
under scientific guise offering stuff that hasn't ben scientifically
proven to work and then when you suggest they can do without it with this
inspiring motto "go pull yourself together"
you have made scientific headway and proven something.
Just in case you think a minister might help as you suggest here's
the following:
I didn't write it intentionally for here...... but since we're quoting
anyhow:
Here the medication are creating health issues (and down the line there
isn't a
psychiatric medication which doesn't have all
sorts of side effects which are made out to be necessary to get an effect
when it's simply a blatant lie........ there are other ways and they
are natural and not from big businesses and they don't make people
dependent
on pills which they have to buy (when there was no proof that there
was anything chemically wrong with their mind to begin with) and which
cause
all sorts of side effects and end
up in the long run causing more problems...................
and the medical profession makes slaves of these people creating new pills
to deal with the side effects they made because they are
in the business of teaching people that they don't have to think for
themselves!
Or that it's better to turn off your mind than to learn that you have a
part
of your
mind which thinks without you trying to control it to paranoid society's
purposes (and then there's supposed
to be something wrong with the mind when it doesn't do this..........it's
like the church saying that
the flesh is corruptible!?)
Good luck with it
What happens when you go up there in heaven with Jesus and all the angels
where it is so much superior to earth. Perhaps sometime
you will completely forget that Jesus ever had a body.
And that that had nothing to do with it because as it stands
He didn't allow it to.
He was more interested in condoning the body being destroyed and calling
it
BEING GLORIFIED
and evidently there was some tyrant up there which decided it was
necessary
but supposedly this tyrant wasn't Jesus because he was just the child of
this tyrant.........
like we all supposedly are
Well I'm NOT
I'm not going to turn off my mind and I'm not going to turn off
anything
else to be part
of an institution................
and somehow despite all of this I still believe in miracles
despite the gaudy torturous love that the purveyor of these manifestations
called "miracles"
is supposedly going to bless me with and make me happy.
I think I want to find out what miracles really are and I am completely
sure
that they have something to do with the fact that I have a body with a
wisdom much greater than what this supposed God of Jesus has done
or the psychiatric health profession!
You destroy the body you contaminate the spirit
Denying your own control tactics and making that out
To be God...................or being sane!?
Is that why people think they need Jesus?
As evidence that it supposedly works?
If time would repeat itself in such a way where would we all be?
I do not think that if Jesus went through all of what he did believing he
needed to influence an Institution that
You are going to find him in one.............. People do learn from their
mistakes...
And why do you believe you need these little pills.............?
Are YOU scared of seeing that you're wrong!?
Are you scared that your mind might question things and not blindly follow
rules?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I'm really getting tired of ogled brained "Geniuses" bent
on finding an excuse to implement some means of defining something as an
illness (which they have to admit there is no chemical proof of) in order
implement some scheme of finding a cure for this fantasy they have.
I have had all the complete "symptoms" of mental illness. I thought for
example that the carbon dioxide detector in my bedroom was bugged so the
police could watch me and would entertain them (even that had it's
interesting harmonics and would bring out a poetry with time and
occurrences which would break the laws of chance it would seem). Lots of
other things the same although I can't say I regressed into believing in
Santa Clause again nor that I ever did.
I was able to allow this supposed "disease" to create a space in my
mind which was the territory it was relating to and that is imagination.
For 7 years I went into states of supposed delusional thinking (and funny
thing is that things happen when you simply accept them without
questioning that wouldn't have otherwise happened although you would think
you need to question them when you're sane) and then come out of it and be
more "sane." Funny thing also is that when you are "sane" as society would
put it that you are more apt to be depressed! I stuck too it though and
through these cycles, these tides I was able to actually learn to navigate
in this new territory which was maybe the imagination or maybe me being
able to act things out to see what was behind my actions, and discover
parts of myself I didn't really know yet but would like to. I fact I know
it was this (I think perhaps people read books because they can relate to
the characters and it might help)..........given that I allowed myself
this space even though it is considered socially unacceptable in many
cases I learned and grew the way nature and God intended because of this
"disease."
And now...........To hear someone call "Schizophrenia" or whatever
else of their prejudisms a disease and suggest that it would help to
supposed start testing what happens when they do I do not know what to
them to take away a symptom which hasn't been proven to be part of a
biomedical disease, isn't seen as an expression of something by them (the
ones who need to start using those they call ill as material for their
experiments)....... And this or these supposed symptoms can be seen as
something completely different, as expressions that lead towards something
which they are trying to express which is necessary for life!
It should be clear to anyone that this type of behavior is severely
abusive!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
There has been one Nobel prize awarded to a psychiatrist (1). That
was in 1927 to Julius Wagner-Jauregg, an Austrian, for showing that giving
malaria to syphilitic patients with general paralysis of the insane (GPI)
cured many of them. The late David Horrobin claims that this treatment,
replaced after the war by penicillin, cured tens of thousands of patients.
He furthr claims that remarkably few psyciatrists are even aware of his
work.
Horrobin thought that the patients with GPI might have been cured by
the pyrexia killing the spirochaetes for they are especially sensitive to
heat. Malaria was also effective in some of the remaining 50% of
psychotics that made up the psychiatic populations in those days, but only
temporarily so. The symptoms in these patients returned when the fever
stopped. These observations lead to psychiatrists in their wisdom locking
their patients in baths, constructed like stocks with just the head
showing, and heating them with hot water. One just imagine the bedlam
that must have caused especially if patients had come to their senses and
thought they were being cooked in a pot.
Hypothyroidism which is accompanied by a fall in body temperature,
and the endogenous antipyretic hormones arginine vasopressin,
adrenocorticotropic hormone as well as glucocorticoids, are all associated
with psychotic disorders (2). Arginine vasopressin in particular is
critically involved in the regulation of many social and nonsocial
behaviors, including emotionality (3).
Horrobin has proposed that a deficiency in prostaglandins might be a
cause of schizophrenia. Prostaglandins are thermogenic. They probably owe
their thermogenic action directly or indirectly to a increase in
mitochondrial membrane permeability, being synthesised from arachadonic
acids within phospholipid cell and organelle membranes. Horrobin also
observed that temperature per se is one of the most effective stimuli for
prostaglandin release. That implies that psychotic patients who did not
have syphilis may have owed their transient improvements to the release of
prostaglandins and an increase in mitochondrial membrane permeability.
Cytokines have a similar action, increasing reliance for ATP
resynthesis upon the more exothermic anaerobic glycolysis by decreasing
oxygen consumption (4) and uncoupling oxidative phosphorylation. This is
of particular interest for a paper published in the NEJM in 1936, to
which Horrobin refers, was evidently the first to report that patients
with arthritis rarely suffer psychotic disorders. Horrobin claims to have
confirmed this assocciation. Arthritis is associated with an abnormal
release of cytokines and is now being successfully treated with the
monclonal antibody to TNF alpha infliximab (5).
These data suggest that many psychotic disorders might simply be the
products of hypothermia caused by disregulation of mitochondria
metabolism. In which case treating them with pyrogens or thermogenic
hormones can be expected to improve their conditions. The mechanism of
action would be an increase in the basal metabolic rate and hence capacity
for resynthesis ATP brought about simply by the physical effects of
increasing temperature evident in Brownian movement and in poikilotherms
such as lizards. In which case treating psychotic disorders with
antipsychotics makes little sense for many are hypothermic themselves (6),
their apparent therapeutic responses arguably being due to an increase in
the severity of the underlying hypothermic disorder. In other words the
apparent therapeutic actions may be no better than a chemical cosh
effect.
If this hypothesis is valid then the current vogue of treating other
chronic inflammatory diseases, such as inflammatory dematoses (7) and
inflammatory bowel disease (8,9), is of considerable concern. Support for
this concern is provided by the report that infliximab worsens sleep
apnoeas (10), undoubtedly the product of tissue hypoxia.
The practice of psychiatry appears from my perspective to have gone
down hill all the way since 1927 when the Nobel prize was awarded for the
discovery of the cure of GPI with malaria. Where, for example, is the very
simple study comparing variations in body temperature with variations in
mood and behaviour in healthy subjects let alone a study comparing mood
and behaviour in healthy controls with those in psychotics. In the absence
of objective biochemical means for distinguishing normal from abnormal
all treatment, no matter how impressive to the observer and even the
patient, is empirical and potentially dangerous if not lethal. The
dangers and lethality are most likely to be evident during the course of
other serious illnesses, such as those requiring operations (6).
There are good grounds for enacting alaw that places a moratorium
upon all psychotropic pharmaceuticals at least until the importance of
Julius Wagner-Jauregg's work in the 1920s has been properly investigated.
1. David Horrobin. The madness of Adam and Eve. Corgi Books Ltd,
London 2001.
2. Roth J, Zeisberger E, Vybiral S, Jansky L. Endogenous
antipyretics: neuropeptides and glucocorticoids.
Front Biosci. 2004 Jan 1;9:816-26.
3. Bielsky IF, Hu SB, Szegda KL, Westphal H, Young LJ Profound
impairment in social recognition and reduction in anxiety-like behavior in
vasopressin v1a receptor knockout mice.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004 Mar;29(3):483-93
4. Khan AU, Delude RL, Han YY, Sappington PL, Han X, Carcillo JA,
Fink MP. Liposomal NAD(+) prevents diminished O(2) consumption by
immunostimulated Caco-2 cells.
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2002 May;282(5):L1082-91.
5. Keystone EC, Haraoui B, Bykerk VP. Role of infliximab in the
treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis.
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003 Sep-Oct;21(5 Suppl 31):S200-2.
6. Kudoh A, Takase H, Takazawa T. Chronic treatment with
antipsychotics enhances intraoperative core hypothermia.
Anesth Analg. 2004 Jan;98(1):111-5, table of contents. Chronic treatment
with antipsychotics enhances intraoperative core hypothermia.
Anesth Analg. 2004 Jan;98(1):111-5, table of contents.
7. Drosou A, Kirsner RS, Welsh E, Sullivan TP, Kerdel FA. Use of
infliximab, an anti-tumor necrosis alpha antibody, for inflammatory
dermatoses.J Cutan Med Surg. 2003 Sep-Oct;7(5):382-6. Epub 2003 Sep 24.
8. Daperno M, Sostegni R, Scaglione N, Ercole E, Rigazio C, Rocca R,
Pera A Outcome of a conservative approach in severe ulcerative colitis.
Dig Liver Dis. 2004 Jan;36(1):21-8.
9. Akobeng A, Zachos M. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2004;1:CD003574.Tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibody for induction of
remission in Crohn's disease.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1:CD003574.
10.Zamarron C, Maceiras F, Gonzalez J, Gomez-Reino JJ. Worsening of
obstructive sleep apnoeas in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis treated
with anti-tumor necrosis factor.
Respir Med. 2004 Feb;98(2):123-5.
Competing interests:
Never found a psychiatrist to be of any help in managing my patients.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Ilene Mazis wrote:
One need not think too hard for example, regarding the recent case of the
Picton farm in Vancouver, Canada where a madman could have been stopped
from slaughtering the greatest number of helpless, poor, and sick women
working the streets for survival, in the history of serial killings in
Canada.[1] [2] Had he been give a shot of drugs involuntarily, I would not
feel the least bit sorry for his violated rights to freedom to kill,
dismember, grind, and feed the victims to his pigs.
To begin with: Who is trying to reserve their right to kill, dismember
etc. I won't go into grinding or feeding because I think the victims were
dead by then. Which industry is responsible for such things as lobotomies
(and recently Harvard was sued 7 million dollars for a laser lobotomy
which left the victim mute and robotic), massive brainwashing which maims
the whole individuality of the person making them believe that they will
only fit into society when they have been made dependent on little pills
which turn off their ability to think?
I would also like to point out that this society which creates these
"healing" methods also creates whole militaries and teaches people how to
kill as if this is how you create harmony. The grit of life, this is how
things work, wars are ugly but they are necessary. If this is how life is
why not just kill a whole bunch of people at random..............much more
grit much uglier and dirtier! Have you ever considered that perhaps this
whole delusion that violence creates harmony is what creates a matrix in
society which give insecure people something to latch onto and believe
that they will be somebody or have done something (whether it's a serial
killer or a tyrant) do they advocate this method of violence? Or perhaps
they take violence on as an obsession in a serial
fashion...............That certainly is what History seems to be made out
of would one read text books....... One war after the other. I think
fiction (aka unreal world aka delusions) has more about what time really
is then all these wars.
Have you ever considered that perhaps it is "society" reserving it's right
to say that someone who doesn't adhere to their norms of how to use
violence (as if it isn't insane to begin with) then is labeled as being
insane (something a real society wouldn't do because it doesn't need such
illusions as adhesion to hold it's members together)? Have you ever
considered that society is reserving it's rights to kill and maim and deny
how this disease of making excuses for violence confuses people? Have you
ever thought that you are reserving the right to kill and maim because you
see your body as an enemy which must be treated as such in order for you
to avoid finding out that your body (your brain your own natural body
chemistry) actually is your friend and would show you how this doctrine of
violence you have sold your soul to is really what is getting in your way
and creating the very things you say violence (the doctrine itself) is
necessary for?
You might also find out that this serial killer might be very very happy
to see that this doctrine which confused him drove him crazy and which
polluted and contaminated his soul actually is the lie that it is. You
might find out that none of what happened would have happened were there
somewhere for people like him to go when they become confused that isn't
part of this insanity of "We know when violence is justified even though
that justification creates exactly what we say it's necessary for."
By the way I am sure there are way MORE "accidental" deaths do to
psychiatric drugs each year then that attributed to serial killers but
society is interested in making themselves out to be moral at the same
time that they create monsters out of understandably confused people. So
the first thing you do is bring out this story of a serial killer to make
yourself seem like you are doing the right thing in excusing society's
violence against people because then you are part of this insensitivity
which sees the human body's brains ability to see things differently as an
enemy. You could take all the deaths attributed to serial killers add them
up grind them into your numbers and feed them to your paranoia machine and
it still wouldn't be close to the number of people murdered in a war that
was made possible by big business favoring someone they thought was
efficient in getting the masses involved with their issues. Issues of
homophobia, antisemitism and exploitive mass control. These were
businesses in the USA which favored one particular leader and gave
("sold") him enough knowledge, materials and the ability to do ruthless
things without being questioned because it was good for business. The
person whose war machinery they helped build up and which wouldn't have
existed without them was Adolph Hitler!
As we speak there are whole cultures which thrived on the mother
earth and whose knowledge of nature's plants, her song, her art and her
love are irreplaceable parts of the human condition yet because they are
not part of the big business of for example the drug industries creating
fabricated substances which they can copyright and sell as magical cures
acting as if debilitating side effects are necessary and disqualifying
anything which grows naturally in the earth is natural to the body and is
not copyright able as not being worth the trouble......... Because they
are not part of all of this, their land is being destroyed and their
wisdom lost! Because their wisdom is not so insensitive that it pushes one
symptom to the side to cause 7 or 7 times seven more which then also are
dealt with through drugs which are fabricated and intrude into the body
chemistry rather than balancing it (while behavioral change which would
help the body balance itself is relegated to personal choices or even
antisocial behavior). So the abundance of new symptoms is seen as some
sort of emergence of knew cures and the drug industries acts as if they
can cure more and more and.....................
It's illegal not to fight in wars (harmony is killing people) when there's
a draft and
When you are labeled as being mentally ill you don't have the right to
refuse medications which are proven to create a chemical imbalance in the
very place they say there was one to begin with but there is no proof for!
Before grinding me up and feeding me up to your paranoia machine in an act
of serial negligence and unscientific prejudism consider that I wouldn't
force anyone on medications that destroy their ability to find out that
they have been lied to and I do not believe that there are excuses to mass
produce weapons which kill people and to teach people to kill people and
to say that this is all necessary for something called a "just war."
Also consider that neither do the businesses which produce the drugs nor
do the countries implementing them being forced on people consider any of
what I believe to be practical. They haven't even tried to see if it is
possible but make sure that these things aren't tried in order to make
people believe that they have the answers.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Stephen Hayes stated that, "Every day in my work as a GP men and
women come into my office, often break down in tears, and say something
like 'It's doing my head in doctor, I can't handle it, you've got to give
me something.'"
Well! If I asked you to push me off a cliff - would you do it? If I
were begging for an operation because I had been acculturated to 'believe'
that it would correct my problems - would you do it?
Late last spring I started 2 support groups, which I have since given
over to new ownership.
http://www.geocities.com/wolfdeck2003/AbuseinTherapy
http://www.geocities.com/wolfdeck2003/RetraumatizingtheVictim
It costs nothing to join and there is a long page of 'links' to read
through for information.
I collected news articles as well. When I got to the end of the page
I didn't start another. Enough already!
http://www.geocities.com/wolfdeck2003/newslistinternat.html
This is one of the pages listing antipsych activism
http://www.geocities.com/wolfdeck2003/antipsychactivist.html
I understand that a majour number of the medical articles that you
read in peer-reviewed medical journals are ghost written by hired agents
of Corporate Pharma, which threatens to destroy respect for medicine in
general, due to obvious health risks to the populace. It is therefore
necessary to look elsewhere for one's information, especially 'generalized
knowledge' about the machinations of established psychiatry and corporate
pharma, which amounts to cannibalizing the masses for profit.
You said, "Typically in the context of NHS General Practice I can
give them 7 or 8 minutes, maybe 15 if I run late..." No problem!
How about having your secretary type up some fact sheets on the 'happy
pills' (and more) that the public have been 'mislead to believe' that they
require to solve life's despair. Another fact sheet would be a listing of
the alternative resources (social milieu) in the local area that they
might like to access for 'peer support', while recognizing that these
resources are few as they are poorly funded - the government's way of
subsidizing corporate pharma and established psychiatry. Another fact
sheet might be the various alternative medical resources in the area
(homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy, naturopathy), also meditation, tai
chi (for the few who can afford them).
In an empathetic, but firm voice, explain the truth - as a medical
doctor you are not certified (hence not qualified) and therefore powerless
to help them with any problem that is not medical, such as 'trajedy by
human agency' that has caused their suffering.
http://www.geocities.com/wolfdeck2003/systemicassault.html
You also stated, "Let those who have non-medical solutions to
unhappiness and "insanity" stand forth and show us a better way!" People
have been doing just this for decades. Unfortunately, the public media -
with corporate directors on their board - prefer not to publish articles
deeply critical of the mental health system and psychiatric drug industry.
For example, Keith Hoeller, a psychologist was recently prevented from
writing op-ed to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (editorial against mental
health parity legislation). It is necessary to 'seek' them out.
<office@mindfreedom.org> I expect they could give you an informed
list of resources and the addresses of colleagues (M.D. & Ph.D.) to
speak to.
The following is a copy/paste from www.psychrights.org
"Raising Questions about Antidepressants, by David O. Antonuccioa William
G. Dantona Garland Y. DeNelskyb, Roger P. Greenbergc James S. Gordond,
Psychother Psychosom 1999;68:3–14. This paper explores relevant research
data and raises questions about these beliefs and that many of the common
beliefs about these medications are not adequately supported by scientific
data: (1) industry-funded research studies which result in negative
findings sometimes do not get published; (2) placebo washout procedures
may bias results in some studies; (3) there are serious questions about
the integrity of the double-blind procedure; (4) the ‘true’ antidepressant
drug effect in adults appears to be relatively small; (5) there is minimal
evidence of antidepressant efficacy in children; (6) side effects are
fairly common even with the newer antidepressants; (7) combining
medications raises the risk for more serious complications; (8) all
antidepressants can cause withdrawal symptoms; (9) genetic influences on
unipolar depression appear to be weaker than environmental influences;
(10) biochemical theories of depression are as yet unproven; (11)
biological markers specific for depression have been elusive; (12) dosage
and plasma levels of antidepressants have been minimally related to
treatment outcome; (13) preliminary evidence suggests that patients who
improve with cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy show similar biological
changes as those who respond to medication, and (14) the evidence suggests
that psychological interventions are at least as effective as
pharmacotherapy in treating depression, even if severe, especially when
patient-rated measures are used and long-term follow-up is considered."
I happened to have these two links in 'my favourites' so I will pass
them on...
http://www.angelfire.com/wv/geoall/8myths.htm
http://www.blockcenter.com/pages/pages_news.asp#7
I greatly enjoy Rick and Frankie at http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters
for their insight into the news about the mental health system.
I understand that there are only so many hours in the day, but
clearly your professional resources have left you ill-informed. Perhaps
there are also other GPs in your area who are faced with similar 'risk to
patient' issues in their practices. It is possible to break up this 'fact-
finding' effort amongst a group. The information could then be put
together into a pamphlet format and distributed amongst a wider group of
peers for dissemination to the public. The AMA and the CMA and whatever
other major organizations that GPs are into are clearly not interested in
public safety or respect for their professional integrity or perhaps their
directors are woefully alien to the subject matter - being as they don't
have the populace in their offices 'crying' for a 'happy' pill. Perhaps,
like the directors of the NIH, they also work for corporate pharma.
Competing interests:
Psychiatric, Consumer-Survivor, X-Patient Self-Advocate
Competing interests: No competing interests
Well........
Here you are part of a system advertising that
they have "Happy" pills.
This is like advertising that
you have money pills or
get a well paying job pills......
You actually sell these pills it seems
If you investigated it you would
find that these pills actually
disable the mind from thinking.
If you haven't then you should.
What you are doing handing out these
pills is like cutting off a persons
legs because you or they are worried that
they might fall and hurt themselves.
I would think it would be your task to
point out that they can learn to use
their legs that there are people who can help
them and that it would be a wonderful process.
That is what a doctor should do.
He should point out what is
actually damaging to the body and
what makes it addicted and dependent and
what takes away from the person actually
being able to think and thus find their own answers
which we all are capable of that's: why we're unique!
You seem to be more concerned that
you were unsuccessfully sued as well
as that you state "I am quite prepared to accept that psycho tropic
medicines are not the whole answer to their problems, but they do seem to
help some people. Let those who have non-medical solutions to unhappiness
and "insanity" stand forth and show us a better way!"
Why you call something that doesn't damage the mind or intrude on the
chemistry of the human experience "non-medical" is beyond me. Happiness
then would have to
be non medical. What YOU are doing is non-medical as well as that it's
part of a whole system which uses the brain washing tactics, coercive
politics and just basic corruption of big business which is selling these
"happy" pills.
Turning off the mind is not healing it.
I also should point out that the legs you cut
off actually organically try to grow back and thus
would a person believe your method works they
have to spend the rest of their life trying to suppress this.
Given what the scientists call the genetics of the human body: to consider
that legs grow back would be a miracle (metaphorically speaking). This
also isn't seen although it is that part of the mind that the psychiatric
profession is trying to suppress, that part where there would be no clear
tangible understanding of what is going on same as there are with
miracles. A miracle would be just as crazy as a delusion and the idea of
what sanity is would be prejudiced against the miracle to begin with for
the very fact that there is no tangible "scientific" understanding of what
is going on. In fact the whole basis of what "scientific" proof is has
been broken at it's most fundamental level. What is called a scientific
experiment where there is a control group and a non control group and one
can take down data from correlations with the control group that aren't
present with the non control group....... this completely breaks down
scientifically (according to their own method they are disproving by
taking it down to it's most fundamental level or at least as far as they
can take it). There are instances at a subatomic level where one cannot
effect the control group without also effecting the non control group (one
of the "Scientific" explanations for this is that something moves faster
than light but that again is impossible according to science. I also
occurs that when one tries to determine whether a subatomic particle is a
particle or a wave that the data from the other way of looking at it is
distorted so they had to determine that we distort matter by trying to
observe it.
By the way other people do not do this they actually learn at a whole
different level about matter, these people maybe hear voices (a criterion
for deciding someone is mentally ill) or they might believe in things
unseen and unheard of, things that there is no evidence to be found using
the same perception that actually has been shown by science to disturb the
very foundation of matter.
In other words if you refute our supposed authority and or method you are
lible to being persecuted.
And it's legal, people are scared of thinking for themselves and make
themselves out to be tortured when there are signs that what they accepted
as being rational didn't work.
Are you going to "help" them by giving them "happy" pills which
actually turn off their ability to figure out what those who sell the
pills don't want them to find or are you going to actually take one step
more rather than.................
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Re: Psychiatry: regression to pharmaceutical catastrophe since 1927?
This really shows how out of hand things get and are!
When someone needs to do something for themselves and work things out on
the inside even though that scares other people and they call it a disease
even though there is no proof of it being one then that person should be
left alone
Also, when you are reading a book and the fire alarm goes off you aren't
probably going to finish reading the book and your whole relationship to
your environment will change. Same as when you suddenly have to deal with
having malaria........
There is a real moral problem when people start setting your house on fire
because they think it's better for you to be dealing with that than to be
reading a book.
So why can't the medical profession just leave us alone with our mind and
book (our fiction our need to escape and breath air not choke on smoke and
have fevers) and stop terrorizing us to decide that when we stop being
able to do what we need to do that we are healed and that when we react in
an understandably angry or confused way that we are sick and dangerous!
Why can't they just leave us alone?
There is no objective proof that there is any chemical imbalance going on
in a mental illness and when somebody is trying to express things they
don't understand themselves and actually need to understand then this
shouldn't be seen as a disease but as an attempt to actually express
something rather than something which becomes labeled as a symptom of a
disease.
Why is it that people keep going on about psychotic disorders when the
very fact that they call something a disorder is because they can't relate
to it and do not know how to make what they call a patient feel safe and
comfortable and that they can express themselves!?
Have they ever tried simply listening and not making someone uncomfortable
because they have to judge what someone says as being psychotic or not!?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests