Screw psychiatry

Refuge wrote:

Makwa wrote:

I will note however, that research indicates that schizophrenia quite often does fade with age, particularly for women.

If you consider that 20-30 years after developing symptoms 50% of people with schizophrenia can't look after themselves independently sure, maybe they get better. (Abnormal Psychology (Canadian Edition) by Davidson, Neale, Blankstein and Flett) Sorry for the thread drift, correcting erroneous information. Please continue.

Misinformation bothers me too. I am tempted to say "fuck psychiatry". But I wont.

No one even really knows what schizophrenia really is. Now, believe me I am not saying that there are not distressed people who suffer from various kinds of delusional states, because of psychological stress or biological imbalances, but anyone who affirms anything about the mental state of persons, and the evolution of psychiatric disorders as absolute facts, without first prefeacing the statement with as many tentative modifying caveats as possible is selling a line.

Give me "studies indicate", or there is "evidence to believe", but don't tell me that all "50% of schitzophrenics can't look after themselves" blah, blah blah, when I know for a fact that not even 2% of all pyschiatrists will agree on a diagnostic definition of schizophrenia.

I don't even like the fundamental premise of the title of your quoted book: "Abnormal Psychology".

That sounds interesting, you should expand on that inquirey. 

I didnt actually venture a figure on how many can and can not take care of themselves, I questioned the existence of a diagnostically consistent definition of schizophrenia, agreed upon by psychiatrists to the extent where one could argue that it exists, in an empirical scientific sense.

I'd like to start of with a firm figure from the book "Abnormal Psychology" on the number of people that "Davidson, Neale, Blankstein and Flett" think are schizophrenic, per capita.

Nice personal attack Cueball but no I am here, reading the posts, dialup can be a hassle for time.

double post

martin dufresne wrote:

Disagreement among specialists - and the resultant hyper-liberalist rantings of a Thomas Szasz, among others - is no solid indication of the inexistence of a real troubled condition. I have a number of friends who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Most of them have come to manage it successfully, but their condition, more than the diagnostic - indeed the diagnostic has been a relief for some of them -, has caused them and their close ones major suffering.

I am talking about science here Martin. Confirming a postulate, hypothesis, theory etc. You know the story. Not making up categories and then trying to define the category we have just invented.

Thanks.

okay cueball, I found something close but still looking for prevalance rate

One study shoed genetic relation percentages the first one is spouse so that would be the normal prevelance rate

Spouse 1%
Grandchild 2.84%
Nieces/Nephews 2.65%
Children 9.35%
Siblings 7.3%
DZ Twins 12.08%
MZ Twins 44.3%

oh- found it - little less than 1%

Refuge wrote:

oh- found it - little less than 1%

Execelent. Thank you. Fine, so any general behaviour patern that is expressed by a little less that 1% of the population qualifies as "abnormal"? 

You are really going to engage in lay psychoanysis online in casual chat forum?

Refuge wrote:

Are you happy with your life, or were you happy with your life before?

Your not really going to try and engage in lay psychoanalysis on an informal internet chat forum are you? I don't really want to get into this but that seems a little invasive.

statistical abnormalities is more helpful when looking for things like developmental challenges - meaning that if a child has an IQ that is 40 they are shown to be statistically low and need extra help. It breaks down a bit for things like behaviour.

When looking at behaviour is other things considered like the violation of norms. This would be where a person does a behaviour that threatens or makes others anxious ie flashers in the park would fall under this.

Personal distress is another. If a person feels a great amount of torment. Depression would be a good diagmosis for this or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

Disability or Dysfunction is another where the person is not able to function - many forms of Autism would fall under this.

Unexpectedness is another category to look at - when a person's reaction is unexpected - PTSD would be a good example for that.

When you are looking at "abnormal behaviour" you have to consider more than just statistics.

I am trying to help him here with his pathology. Never mind you. You are fine.

Now I feel invaded with you assuming that is what I was doing.

ETA:Sorry RevolutionPlease, this was for Cueball.

Refuge wrote:

statistical abnormalities is more helpful when looking for things like developmental challenges - meaning that if a child has an IQ that is 40 they are shown to be statistically low and need extra help.

 Why is the "stupid" diagnosis necessary for the child to get the required help?  I  mean, if a child has an IQ of 40, one would think that it would be quite evident to everyone who was involved that the child needed special attention? With that kind of IQ, I think it would be blindingly obvious.

Cueball wrote:

Why is the "stupid" diagnosis necessary for the child to get the required help?

 Early detection, using statistics for IQ can help pick up kids that aren't obvious but are statistically different (example mom know something is wrong but doesn't know exactly what) at the age of one or two. The parents can then put them in specialized early intervention programs.

Also in general this type of testing can rule out this diagnosis of developmental delay if it is something else like Autism but looks like a developmental IQ delay.

About the "ugh" I checked the search and couldn't find much beyond threads using it the way I did, maybe someone could PM me so I know?

Paging N R Kissed and Oldgoat!! This thread could use your insights! 

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Why are you assuming what I'm assuming you assumed to have said?

[old joke alert]

Never assume, because when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME.

[/old joke alert]

 

(Still hoping for N R Kissed and oldgoat to pop in with their thoughts) 

Returning to the topic in the OP, RevolutionPlease, here are some links for groups in Toronto (I know you're north of here, but maybe you get into the city sometime?)

Mad Pride Toronto: http://www.madpridetoronto.blogspot.com/

The Friendly Spike Theatre Band: http://www.globalserve.net/~friendlyspike/

Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault (CAPA): http://capa.oise.utoronto.ca/Home.html

CAPA's blog: http://capacanada.wordpress.com/

As an aside, I've heard only good things about Dr. Szasz. Martin, please share your thoughts on him. Via PM if it's too much thread drift. Thanks.

[MOD HAT ON] First, we need to be respectful here.  There are a lot of opinions on this subject, and damn few facts.  What we do know for sure is our own subjective experiences, so when someone in this thread chooses to share some of those, they will be treated with respect.  Babble will NOT join the psychiatric community in invalidating anyones subjective experience, even if it differs from your own, someones you know, or what you've heard. (or especially what you've read)

Maybe a ground rule or two.  Mispell it anyway you like, but people are NOT schiziphrenics.  They may be people with schizophrenia, or better yet people that some overpaid knob who's too clumsy to be a surgeon calls schizophrenic.  (you may be getting my own bias here) This is just basic.

Also, it's nice to sound supportive, but let's not get into internet therapy with eachother.  It's likely disrespecful and unwelcome, and for sure ineffective.  [/MOD HAT]

 

As some may be aware, I work in the community mental health field.  the distinction there is, that I don't work for a hospital or like institution.  Here's my charitable outlook.  The huge majority of psychiatrists mean well, and believe in what they're doing.  I even know a few who I think are really good.

IMHO, most are locked in a disease model western medical mode, and are too bound by their own inertia, and that of the institution to stray far from that place, at least for the forseeable future.  I say this despite initiatives to bring more clients on board in a peer role, and other progressive initiatives.  That's a good thing mind you, but I don't see it as achieving it's potential due to the aforementioned institutional inertia.

Some may be aware of the buzz that when the DSM 5 comes out in 2011, the term schizophrenia will be abandoned.  I'm not sure exactly what the thinking is there, but my own problem with the term schizophrenia, is that there are too many different things going on, such as PTSD, as noted above, to really mean anything.

...gotta pause for a bit here.  I have too many thoughts on this and too many other things to get to at the moment.

 

Just want to say though, I've had three psychiatrists myself, two of whom I found quite good.  They were more analytically oriented, which is what suits me personally.  One of the things I liked about them is they were reluctant to reach for their prescription pad.  As major depressive disorder has been a lifelong companion for me, I've tried meds with varying results.  My own position right now is I won't use them again.

 

My experiences with psychiatrists have been good. I first saw a psychiatrist when I was 19 to get off meds I had been taking for ADHD. He did a great job of monitoring my withdrawal and asking the right questions. The second personal experience was when we were consulting a child psychologist re. our first son who has Aspergers. Again, very helpful. In my decade of working with students with disabilities I found most members of the healthcare professional to be helpful.

 I will be brief for the moment although I'm sure I'll hve more to say later.

Psychiatry is  not only a pseudo science, it's claims of the existence of chemical imbalance have not only not been empirically validated they have been demonstrated false whether that be the dopamine theory of "schizophrenia" or the catecholmine or serotonin theories of "mood disorders." Despite this they continue to make fraudulent claims concerning knowledge and treatment.

I do not find diagostic labels useful in fact for the most part they are harmful in that they impose a "spoiled identity" on people that negatively impacts an individuals sense of self and margnalizes them in relation to others. Schizophrenia carries with it what Dr. Patricia Deeghan apaptly called the prognosis of doom in which the labelled person is told that the best they can hope for is to "manage their condition" and they should give up hope of any dreams concerning what most consider important in life relationship, work and meaningful activity and engagement.  The label schizophrenia is meaningless in any phenomenological way that would help someone make sense of their experience. I have  never in ten years as a community mental health worker( or twenty years as a psych survivor) met someone with this diagnosis who was not the survivor of significant trauma. 

THe label that Stargazer mentioned BDP is an odious pejoritive that is imposed primarily on women who have experienced severe and ongoing trauma particularly in childhood. 

 Psychiatric treatment is not only ineffective it is to a large extent harmful and traumatizing. I almost always recommend people read Robert Whitakers MAD IN AMERICA:BAD SCIENCE, BAD MEDICINE, AND THE ENDURING MISTREATMENT OF THE MENTALLY ILL. SUE JOHNSTONE'S USERS AND ABUSERS OF PSYCHIATRY IS ALSO VERY GOOD.

 

I would agree with Oldgoats assessment of psychiatrists  that they are well meaning to the extent that they mean well in concern for their own sense of power privilege and self interest. I have not seen them demonstrate the same concern to those they are intending to support. I'm sure though that Oldgoat would also agree that when dealing with psychoemotional distress good intentions are not really sufficient.

 Revolution Please, I myself was diagnosed Bipolar( amongst other things) over ten years ago  I do not take psychiatric drugs and I have not experienced severe distress "manic" "depressive" or otherwise. I have found my experiences of psychoemotional distress understandable and crucial aspects of my own experience and essential in both my practical and theoretical understanding of madness and distress.