do they say "Agree to disagree"?

Just pointing out that there is a review board and one can make appeals as causalset stated that was not the case with a CTO. I am glad that you are standing up for yourself and I really do hope that things go well for you.

Cheze2 wrote: I disagree with causalset however. I don't believe that you should fight them on these matters. You have been trying that for a long time. Where has that gotten you?

I am suggesting something he didn't try yet. In his previous attempts he was telling them how pharmacy just looks for money -- and this kind of assertion has no proof. What I am suggesting to him is drop the entire "money" business and, instead, point out logical holes in various things nurses DO say. Once they are confronted with logical contradiction, they would have much more difficult time defending themselves.

One thing I noticed -- not just in case of psychiatry but in general -- is that people's arguments tend to be emotional rather than logical and I am oftentimes amaized how they had a perfect opportunity to point out the logical flaw in what their opponent had to say yet failed to do so. Now, I am not saying that this applies to the person in question. But since it tends to apply to 90% of people (I am speaking in general, not just psychiatry), I wouldn't be at all surprised if the poster in question missed some opportunities too.

Like one thing that draws my attention is this: here he is on this board pointing out the fallacy of "agree to disagree". The obvious question is: did he make the same point to the doctor he was talking to? If I take what he wrote, the answer is no: he said he had nothing to respond and in fact that's what he complains about: that doctor presumably deprived him from opportunity to respond. Well he HAS something to respond -- namely the exact thing he wrote in original post -- so why didn't he try to say it to the doctor?

Cheze2 wrote:Unfortunately the way the system works sucks. You have to go along with their belief system until they release their grasp and then you can be free to do as you desire.

The problem with this option is that, by the time they release them, a bunch of irreversible changes will already happen to his brain, so in some sense it would be "too late". In fact, ask yourself from doctors point of view: why did doctors finally release him? The answer is that they believe that the "job" of permanently changing the brain has been done, that's why. And that is precisely what you don't want!

Cheze2 wrote:To set things clear however, when one is put on a CTO there is an appeal system, and the case is reviewed on a regular basis so there is ample opportunity to have your case heard.

Well, here is an example of one person in CTO who had perfectly logical case yet apparently didn't succeed with any appeals http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJBMXw7-fw
So, apparently, appeal system goes through formal motions without actually reading or taking seriously what the patient is saying.

Razael wrote:no matter how many times I told my old clinician about the drug companies orchestrating psychiatry knowledge base she would get confused and think I mean the drug companies are paying the clinic to keep me as a patient...how retarded is this, they didn't use the agree to disagree on this one...thing is can't even remember what made the last psychiatrist say this but I heared it so many times, its like they are't listenting and just disagreeing out of principle so they say it and think they are so clever making their patients confused and baffled about what they were even talking about....I suppose all this would go over their head and they would say agree to disagree to get rid of the problem with quacks confusing their patients with cleverness.

I know that so so well and it can drive someone up a wall. Its part of the game to label you as having paranoid delusions. It would get done to me all the time. Tell them anything about alternative treatment, legitament concerns about your treatment ect and they would try turn as though it was coming from something you made up in your head and believed it to be true. Then they started the relating testing, "well then if you think its true do you have facts to show us". When trying to tell my point of view they then try to have you question everything so vaguely, that it gets to a point where you find yourself going in circles.

Truth is they dont see any mental patient as having critical thinking skills. Many are tought that is actually why delusions take flight in the first place... because they cant stop and reason a false thought through. So you can imagine how that helps the patient when they have a real insight. When you do start to bring up anything of truth they just do what they have learned in school, subvert the delusion, or in this case spinning the truth around.

Your best bet is to get out of there hands. Clearly you have proven you have brains, its to bad they don't. Once you get out it will be a revolution for you, you will feel much better because clearly you say that you don't.

Hop things get better. You sound like a good man.

Riccola wrote:Truth is they dont see any mental patient as having critical thinking skills.

That line "Agree to disagree" that's horrible but what about the game of asking a question in response to a question ? Thats almost as evil as the agree to disagree line.

Q Why should I take pills that make me feel like a zombie, trash my creativity and ... ?

A Don't you want to get better... ?

or the loaded question:

The traditional example of the the loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past.

What medication is acceptable for your illness... ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

One time when dealing with a mental health worker I made up a question list with a line for answers at the end of each question and said "fill this out, Im tired of talking".

1. Why should I take pills that make me feel like a zombie, trash my creativity and make it more difficult to think and figure out anything including the problem that got me here ?

_______________________________________ .

2. How does the distress caused by not having my cell phone help ? ____________________ .

3. What do you think will happen if you have me forcefully injected (assaulted and drug raped) for non medication compliance and I see you on the street all alone at a later date ?

__________________________________.

I didn't put down question number 3 but I said it during that nightmare called help, I'm crazy maybe but not stupid.

That's what I have for this thread, give them the questions on paper and let them fill in the answers.

Riccola wrote:Then they started the relating testing, "well then if you think its true do you have facts to show us".

Actually this is MUCH better than "agree to disagree" option. At least, they are going to listen to your response to their question. Even more importantly, you will be able to ask them similar question in return, such as "how do you know that when I done X it was because of hallucination AS OPPOSED TO an explanation I gave you?" So, since THEY are the ones who are often irrational, you actually have some luck once they invite you into logical discussion. You should totally grab this opportunity.

One thing to avoid, though, is mentioning anything that can't be proven. For instance, you can't prove that the doctor prescribes meds out of financial interest rather than concern for you. So don't bring it up. On the other hand, what you CAN prove is that their concern for your well being has some logical holes in it. So stick to that part.

Riccola wrote: When trying to tell my point of view they then try to have you question everything so vaguely, that it gets to a point where you find yourself going in circles.

This also has a rational response. In particular, you can tell them that if they were apply this kind of criteria to anyone else, that other person would be "crazy" as well. Then bring an example, such as a person going to the store, and point out how you can question why he went there at this time rather than 5 minutes earlier, why he bought this item rather than that, and so forth.

But then, at the same time, acknowledge that yes, there are people who ARE ill. And then ask THEM a question what makes them think that you resemble someone mentally ill rather than someone going to the store. After all, you are not jumping off of cliff, you simply failed to answer some of the scrupulous questions that no one can answer.

Riccola wrote: Truth is they dont see any mental patient as having critical thinking skills.Many are tought that is actually why delusions take flight in the first place... because they cant stop and reason a false thought through.

If that's the case, they are basically shooting themselves in the foot right there. After all, the logical implications of the above is that, if you TEACH a patient on how to use critical thinking skills, then the patient would "reason out" themselves from the delusion, and then there won't be a need for meds, would there? Now, if they are willing to believe that the patients problem is lack of critical thinking skills and AT THE SAME TIME refuse to believe that teaching those skills would do any good, that is a logical contradiction right there. So confront them on this.

Besides, point out to them that you don't have anything against being taught critical thinking skills: after all, in sharp contrast to meds, it actually IMPROVES your IQ rather than lows it! So go head and tell them that you are more than happy to have critical thinking sessions to cure you, or any other therapy of their choice that doesn't involve meds or ECT.

Copy_Cat wrote:

Riccola wrote:Truth is they dont see any mental patient as having critical thinking skills.

That line "Agree to disagree" that's horrible but what about the game of asking a question in response to a question ? Thats almost as evil as the agree to disagree line.

Q Why should I take pills that make me feel like a zombie, trash my creativity and ... ?

A Don't you want to get better... ?

or the loaded question:

The traditional example of the the loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past.

What medication is acceptable for your illness... ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

One time when dealing with a mental health worker I made up a question list with a line for answers at the end of each question and said "fill this out, Im tired of talking".

1. Why should I take pills that make me feel like a zombie, trash my creativity and make it more difficult to think and figure out anything including the problem that got me here ?

_______________________________________ .

2. How does the distress caused by not having my cell phone help ? ____________________ .

3. What do you think will happen if you have me forcefully injected (assaulted and drug raped) for non medication compliance and I see you on the street all alone at a later date ?

__________________________________.

I didn't put down question number 3 but I said it during that nightmare called help, I'm crazy maybe but not stupid.

That's what I have for this thread, give them the questions on paper and let them fill in the answers.

I don't think the question/answer you presented is sufficient -- especially since you already know ahead of time what their answers would be, and also once they do answer they are not giving you a chance to counter what they said. I would stick with having an open discussion with them.

But then again I see your point as to why something on paper might be beneficial: if psychiatrist goes back and forth in terms of what they say, then you can refer back to what they have written previously in order to point contradiction, and you wont be able to do that otherwise unless the conversation was tape recorded or something.

So perhaps the best course of action is the "discussion on paper" and/or "tape recorded discussion" but the discussion should be back and forth where both sides can respond as many times as needed, instead of just question/answer where they respond once and that is it.

As far as "loaded questions" here is the way in which you respond to them. If psychiatrist asks you "have you stopped beating your wife" your answer should be the following: first, you point out that this question doesn't have all possible answers, in particular, it doesn't have an option "I never beat my wife" and that puts you in unfair situation. After that, you tell him that in your case "I never beat my wife" happens to be the correct answer.

However, don't ask any loaded questions yourself. Make it a point to show that YOU are willing to be completely fair and logical, and it is THEM who are being unfair towards you.

P.S. The "loaded question" about medication that you gave, "what medications are you willing to take", is actually a very good one. You can suggest some med that is a lot milder, and has far fewer side effects, than the one they are giving you. Or even better: you can suggest food supplements that doesn't have ANY side effects. Now I realize that ideally it is better to be without meds altogether. But sometimes you have to pick lesser of two evils. If you refuse meds, they would force you to keep taking antipsychotic but if you pick a milder med then who knows they might allow you to switch. Or even if not, at least they will see that you have some rational thinking to back up what you are saying rather than just a blind stubbornness.