what is your opinion of the CCHR?

charter wrote:debate Kirsch's view of antidepressants

I made the new topic for that. Shortcut anti-psych/topic118576.html

Yes, I suppose that like with NAMI (The National Alliance for the Modern Inquisition), CCHR could be described as a front group, though I am not aware of their transparency in regards their funding by the Church and and as a result of this their subservience to the interests of the Church, so that the usage might be strained if there is transparency.

Yet the reason I would, say, criticize NAMI, is not because they are a front group, although their being a front group is of importance, but because of their forced treatment agenda, their stronger allegiance to the interests of family members as opposed to the patient who is in conflict with them, and because they are one of the powerful institutional forces that shape "mental health care", in my opinion influencing it in a direction profoundly inimical to the interests of the individual who has become entangled in the web of forced psychiatry, forging and tightening the fetters of the victim of this odious institution.

CCHR's seeming agenda on the other hand, I am in sympathy with. It has provided vital legal support for patients who need it, and has done much to offset the effects of the infiltration of society with the misinformation disseminated by the relevant institutions which converge around the issue of "mental health care". I also think such an organization has something of a gravitational pull for those (and there are probably many) who rightly feel ostracized by the survivor movement, which is pretty exclusive to my mind.

Also, I am always struck by the general differential in motive attributions regarding scientologists and psychiatrists. I have never heard anyone say that scientologists are "well-meaning". Instead, their activities are usually conceptualized in quasi-demonological terms, as if they were a class of individuals in whom is concentrated to the fullest the depravity of the species.

Maybe this is because the language we use colors our thinking and emotions, and of course, there being a reciprocity between language and thought/feeling, vice versa, as was illustrated by Orwell in what is probably the locus classicus of this idea when he said, "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."

Most people hate scientologists (although much of this hatred has a basis in truth, considering what has gone on at the Church, done by people whose actions should be exposed to the full rigor of the law) and therefore there is a pervasive denigration of their motives. Most people respect psychiatrists and therefore there is a pervasive romanticization of their motives, a tendency that seems to have contaminated survivors and people who criticize psychiatry and some aspect of psychiatric orthodoxy as well.

Whether we think a person means well or means ill is usually a marker of how we feel about that person, and the same applies to whether we think someone a good person or not. Our friends mean well and enemies mean ill, the former are good people and the latter bad. People like Whitaker, Bentall and Lucy Johnstone are very close to many mental health workers, ergo it is hardly surprising they make the claim that the majority mean well.

Scientologists are just like psychiatrists, human beings. There is no such thing as humans who without variance mean well or ill, motives are variable, our nature protean and characterized by polarities. The character of our motives and intentions are dependent on interpersonal, situational and emotional variables.

Nevertheless, scientology is supposedly an evil cult of evil people (and there may be some truth in that), with a sinister plan to take over the world (and the espousal of such an idea renders you immune to accusations of being a conspiracy theorist, which is usually reserved for those who question those in whose hands are concentrated the most power in dominant society) whereas state psychiatrists and nurses are "carers", engaged in a philanthropic venture.

I was surprised at there lack of resources. They don't even do lawyer referrals that would be very helpful as lawyers don't want to tackle this stuff. I filed a report with them and really did not get a call back from them letting me know if they had any progress. I am going to file another report with them to see what happens this time

-- Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:33 am --

I was surprised at there lack of resources. They don't even do lawyer referrals that would be very helpful as lawyers don't want to tackle this stuff. I filed a report with them and really did not get a call back from them letting me know if they had any progress. I am going to file another report with them to see what happens this time

My personal experience is that CCHR members are all scientologists. At first they listen to your story, they understand that psychiatry can do people wrong and they help you out. When you get to know them better, they start coming up with weird theories that have nothing to do with the bad side of psychiatry. They assure you ADHD ( or whatever you want to call it) can be cured with a diet, special expensive water, they make you believe psychiatry reduced you to a zero but their books, sessions,...can turn you into a hero. Most people I met there happened to be very rich but they wanted you to work for free.

I have nothing but derision and scorn for Scientology, and CCHR's overwrought videos are not helping their case.

On the other hand, drugging people against their will (and this includes children) is a CRIME. People who do this need to go to PRISON. But not regular prison. Some sort of gulag in Antarctica would be more appropriate.

CCHR claims they have alternatives for everything but what if you have tried everything. You know you've been a great parent, an amazing parent and your kid still acts like a wild brat, he's rude, he destroys other people's stuff even though you taught him not to do it. Society blames you as a parent for your kid's behaviour. That's just the tough part of this pro, anti thing.

Mister_J wrote:CCHR claims they have alternatives for everything but what if you have tried everything. You know you've been a great parent, an amazing parent and your kid still acts like a wild brat, he's rude, he destroys other people's stuff even though you taught him not to do it. Society blames you as a parent for your kid's behaviour. That's just the tough part of this pro, anti thing.

Are you implying that forcing your kid to take psychotropic drugs so that he behaves is a morally acceptable solution? Just making sure here.

Because the tough part of this pro-, anti- thing is actually being the child in question.