Psychiatrists don't know about suffering

many people are skeptical about the science behind homeopathy, but compared with the total lack of scientific evidence behind psychiatry, there both on a par.

Total lack of evidence? That is not true at all. Way more research and studies have been conducted in psychiatry than homeopathy. I'm all for homeopathic remedies and have used some myself. But there is no way that you can say that there is no evidence to prove that psychiatry is effective. Yes, the brain is still a very mysterious organ, but the proof is in the results of the use of these medications. I am living proof of this. and, I am a very skeptical, pesimistic person. So, there is no way that the meds I am on have a placebo effect on me.

My condition has improved emmensly since being on meds. Mind you, medication was my last resort. I've tried everything from Reiki to every herbal remedy in the book. It definately brought me some relief, but I was still unable to function. So I decided to try psychiatry again and it works best for me. But, my condition is pretty serious compared to those who suffer from mild depression or anxiety who can actually reap the benefits of homeopathic remedies. So I do think homeopathy is beneficial.

I wouldn't say that I am completely for psychiatry because I think that this world, and my country in particular, is way over medicated. Some doctors will hand out a script to anyone with the blues. And I think those who suffer from depression that is not chemical should probably try to deal with this through therapy and just feel the sadness. After all, that is part of being human. But if chemical imbalences can be balanced then, why not? It's an illness just like a heart problem or central nervous system problem. It needs to be treated, right? The brain is an organ just as the heart is. And should be treated as such IMO.

One aspect of psychiatry that I absolutely despise, is the forcing of medication on individuals. It's understandable if the person is a threat to themselves or society. But even then, I think that they should try every possible measure to rehabilitate them before forcing meds on them. I think that is a total infraction on their rights as a human.

For me, a topic like this just cannot be seen in black an white. Different scenarios call for different measures.

Anyways, sorry for going off topic. Please carry on.

Amy

There is a fledgling new system in the counseling universe where people who have been working their recovery successfully for a significant time are becoming providers. The cute name they've been tagged is "con-viders" (consumer providers). There is even a facility in upstate New York that is ran exclusively by people who have been patients before becoming helpers. The AA model of recovery "sponsors" is translatable to mental illness. These forums offer some of that.

I hear your frustration--however, I don't necessaryily think this is the fault of our psychiatrists. Most really want to help people--but their practice is a result of their TRAINING. And yes, I've had a very bad psychiatrist once, but my new psychiatrist means well, and is very empathetic. It's not really doing much for me, but its really all they know...

This is more of a cultural issue, a political issue, power of the drug companies, public perceptions, media, etc. YOU REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE HERE. To envoke any remarkable changes, one has to form alliances, engage in advocacy, influence policy making, etc. Results must be obtained from higher levels--colleges and government.

The good news is, psychiatry is slowly changing/evolving. New trends are starting to show. Hang in there. It will take a long time.

They are successful people.Have no financial worries,went to public school and Universities and are considered "upperclass"

They don't have a clue about Menallly disturbed people who had bad upbringings,have struggled in poverty,bad schooling and
endless failures.

They went to college and then did a degree. Setting them back probably tens of thousands. Then they can start earning money and paying off debts which leave them earning less than an average electrician who has no debt and probably did an apprenticiship which probably took them less than a year.

People that become doctors of any type don't do it for the money, if they did they'd probably drop out of college and choose to do something else. Most of them chose that career because they want to help people. Often because a long time ago they were on the other side of the office.

oh my heavens to bettsy sake! whoa, this topic i would say had HOW MANY points i so wanted to react to, it was too many to keep tract of and comment on! so i'll just pick one at random and comment.

sakamoto wrote:Aren't you guys throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you say that just because you or people you knew had bad experiences with psychiatrists in the past, the whole field of psychiatry is wrong/fraudulent?

I mean, that's like me saying that my GP sexually molested me so now I'm going to advocate that everybody stop believing in hospitals from now on and recommend to all my friends that they invest in leeches.

this comment kinda made me stirred up and i'm trying to find the words i'm looking for. my vocabulary and ability to communicate my thoughts is still ###$ up from an accident 4 years ago that almost killed me (i wish it did). so pardon me if it takes 5 pages of ramble with no obvious sense of direction intended just to make a single point.


trust. it all comes down to - trust. what is the definition of 'trust'?
these i copied and pasted:

1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confident expectation of something; hope.
3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.
5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.
6. the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed: a position of trust.
7. charge, custody, or care: to leave valuables in someone's trust.
8. something committed or entrusted to one's care for use or safekeeping, as an office, duty, or the like; responsibility; charge.


the dictionary went on and on with more 'definitions' so i figured a few would suffice. trust is based on a sense of confidence placed on the outcome/expectation to occur. which can be reworded to hope, and faith. meaning, you do not have any sense of doubt or questioning or second thought. not even the slightest bit.

when you hold an apple flat in your hand (no fingers curled around it in a grip) with your arm extended, and i tell you to rotate your hand 180 degrees....tell me, what thoughts go through your mind about that apple? is it going to explode? is it going to remain in contact with your hand? is the apple going to turn itself into apple sauce or juice? is the apple going to rise in the atmosphere back to the tree branch it was on?? ................... ah, you say that apple is going to fall to floor off your hand before you even finish turning your hand 90 degrees!!! ...oh, but, are you sure about that? how do you know it won't take till your hand is rotated 120 degrees for it to slide off to the floor?

none of these thoughts ever cross your mind does it? why? you are confident and sure earth's gravitational pull will cause it to fall. 100% confident in the facts that gravity will always exist, therefore, it is always in a constant pull towards the earth, therefore, that apply will always fall to the ground.

what if, just what if....one day, that apple, did not fall? but floated upward to the sun? no, this is not a paranormal situation, or a hallucinagenic encounter, etc etcetc....it is real. a small population of people exist and report they noted something too (maybe not an apple for them, maybe it was a baseball, car oil, a snow avalanche went uphill, not down....etc etc). now what happens? what do you have going through your mind now about gravity? for the most part, yeah, everything is still 'falling' to the earth and the gravitational pull is still 9.8 m/s/s. save, some things around the globe, don't follow the laws of gravity. where the apple did not fall, and someone brings a feather there, and it falls just fine...then brings a one-ton weight and it too falls just fine...then the apple brought somewhere else and it falls just fine, then back again to that spot, and falls just fine....while other spots the one ton weight does NOT fall and the apple falls...doubt and question begins to enter your mind about gravity now doesn't it? whats wrong with gravity? its not 100% doing it around the globe, and if a survey was run on the acre coverage it has happened at compared to the entire globe acreage total, and it comes out to like 5%, but IS recorded as regular occurance world wide, just no constants to create a predictability.....do you see what i'm getting at here? a sense of question and doubt now exists.


now lets move this to human interaction with animals. a child goes up to pet a dog. that dog sees the child, and as the child approaches and gets closer, you hear barking and a dog chain jingling. and its not nice barks either. teeth are showing. do you think that child will go up to that dog again? or other dogs for that matter?
now reverse the rolls here. take a dog, just got bought and is at its new first home. everytime that dog barks, the owner hits its head. every time the dog pees or poos ANYWHERE, the owner goes and shoves the feces down the dogs mouth. now, the only human the dog as seen and interacted with for several years now is its owner. the human society gets called and has the sincere intention to help and rehabilitate the dog. do you think the dog is going to jump for joy at humans who remove him from the owner who abused him? nope. that dog doesn't care what human you are, you're a human and will become very aggressive and defensive upon first encounter.
ok, instead of domesticated animals, how about wild animals? are you able to go up to an animal and just pet it? or, will a wild animal come up to you and get all snuggly? i >think< the only very few wild animals that exist that humans CAN just interact with are like those on the gallapagos or something where circumstances are highly different and not enough interaction occured for it to be 'programmed' in their minds what outcomes they've had with humans (and i do mean a butt load of variables are in that situation so don't go rambling me asking why do wild dolphins interact with humans as those are also under ANOTHER set of unrelated variables that cannot be compared to galapagos. its like apples and oranges)

ok, leme take one more step up in comparison. i'll pick a very highly debatable one without intention of debate. the united states' current president.....or other presidents for that matter. next election, lets say bush runs again. to many a people in the nation, he's royally screwed a $#%^ load o stuff up and won't be reelected. trust has been lost on bush. what if, lets say, bush does a jekyll and hyde change? changes all the areas the public complains about. stuff gets better politcally speaking. do you think he'll be reelected back as president with that having occured? probably not huh? trust was lost.

now, i know your gona bring up the arguement, just because one president/doctor was bad, that doesn't mean all the presidents/doctors are bad. i can agree on that topic. however. on the next presidential run, what goes through your head? "these decisions were made, this happened, nothing was done on this topic, and instead on that....." they affect what qualities you look for in the next president doesn't it? you are bringing up questions in yer head whether you realize it or not arn't you? questions coming from a sense of unknowness, no confidence or surety/security, doubt. you don't want to go through the same 'mistakes' as was done in the past do you? it takes a period time of evaluation doesn't it? to think things through, then arrive upon a conclusion. and the conclusion itself, being a sense of confidence in an expectation. trust. faith. hope. ......... now, let me make it so you CANNOT have a period of time to 'evaluate' the presidential choice. pick one. (lets say bush ran again) bush, hilary, or a not popularly known politician yet? you're not allowed to know whose running for what political party, stands for what topics, or even whose a male or female. lets say three boxes with A, B, C were on the ballot, would you vote?...why not? no confidence or trust have you in a unknown choice becoming president do you?

consider that period of evaluation over the three choices, like looking at a loved one who cheated on you, and says they are sorry. ask for forgiveness, and for things to go back like when you were on you're honeymoon. they say they will never cheat on you again. its one thing to 'forgive' your mate. but will you ever look upon your mate again the way you did on your honeymoon? trusting fully they love you and only you? or is there now a fear, even if just remotely small and quiet, that they may do it again?





for me personally, i have lost 'trust' in doctors. it WILL TAKE a butt load of effort for me to 'trust' a doctors opinion. every human is different and individualistic, yes. what is always one doctors opinion is not always anothers. but after the number of doctors i HAVE seen, i get to be just like them and automatically group and categorize them as lazy money greedy bastards if they come to quick diagnosis or say 'i don't know' and shove me off not willing to work with me.....just as i have been stamped by them into how many a medical category without working with me, i will stamp them back without working with any others.

once 'trust' is violated amogst humans, rarely is it ever restored back to 100%.

cursed, I totally understand where you're coming from. I think most people who've experienced what you have would feel the same.

But how you feel about psychiatrists doesn't make psychiatrists evil as a general rule; that's like saying the abused dog is right, and that no human can ever be trusted. The dog is acting on what he's learnt - but he hasn't learnt all things about all people, so his judgement (if dogs have judgement! let's say they do for the sake of argument) is impaired.

One psych I saw lost her mother to cancer in her teens. She survived a terribly abusive marriage, lost a baby to sids. I don't think anyone could honestly say she didn't know what suffering was. It's very easy to imagine what these people have, to see them come into an office, see patients, and imagine them going back to their prefect lives, with no connection to the people they see at all... but we really don't know wha their lives are like, what they do or don't endure. And that's as it should be... but to jump to conclusions about people whose lives we know nothing about; that's wrong.